P.D.KUDAL, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by, the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi on April 30, 1976.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that Mukan Chand filed a suit against the defendants Babulal and Ruparam for arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendants from a shop situated in Sumerpur as described in para 1 of the plaint It was contended by the plaintiff that according to the rent -rote executed on December 4, 1969 the rate of rent was Rs. 61/ - per month. It was also contended that the defendant No. 2 has not paid the arrears, of rent from December 4, 1971 and that a portion of the shop in question has been sub -let to the defendant No. 2. Thus, the ejectment was claimed on the ground of default and sub -letting. The defendants, however, denied the allegations in the plaint. It was contended that the defendants are ready any willing to pay the arrears of rent upto the date of framing of the issues. It was also contended that the defendant No. 2 is only a partner in the suit premises and that the portion of the shop in question was never sub -let to the defendant No. 2. The defendant also moved an application on February 27, 1974 purporting to be one, under Section 19 -A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). In this application the defendant, Babulal, contended that he admits that he is the tenant of the plaintiff, and that he is willing to pay the rent which is legally due against him. The learned Counsel for the defendants, however, did not press this application dated February 27, 1974 as would be evident from the proceedings dated July 1, 1974. The learned trial Court struck out the defence of the defendant by its Order dated August 13, 1974 as the defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent, interest and cost on the first date of hearing, i.e. September 25, 1973. The learned trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit on May 20, 1975 on the ground of non payment of rent only. The issue of sub -letting a portion, of the shop in question was also decided in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants, however, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi. The appeal was also dismissed on April 30, 1976. The defendants feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi have now filed this second appeal before this Court. The defendant -appellant has also filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, seeking permission of this Court to amend the written statement. It seems that the application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC was also filed along with the appeal, but no notice was issued of this application to the respondent Mukan Chand, The learned Counsel for Mukan Chand during the course of arguments of the appeal, however, tools notice of this application also, and contended that the application for amendment has been filed at an extremely belated stage, and that the amendment sought for should not be allowed as it is likely to change the nature of the de fence taken by the defendants, and would ultimately result in setting up a new and inconsistent case from the original one as set up by the defendants. The learned Counsel for the defendant -appellant, however, contended that the application for amendment could be moved even at this stage and that the amendment of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 has been effected by the Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 issued on September 29, 1975. It was contended that the issuance of this Ordinance has made available further grounds of defence against eviction, and that under such circumstances, an application for amendment could be moved.
(3.) THE application for amendment has primarily been moved with a view to cover the default which has been committed by the defendant, Babu Lal, in payment of rent, and in not depositing the arrears of rent, interest and cost on the first date of hearing. The first date of hearing was May 29, 1973, while the defendant claimed that he is ready and willing to pay the rent upto the date when the issues are framed. The issues were framed on February 29, 1974. Section 6 of the Act lays down the procedure for fixation of standard rent. Section 6(5) lays down the date from which the standard rent would be liable to be paid, if so determined by the Court. The proviso to Sub -section (5) of Section 6 lays down that in case of a tenant who institutes a suit under this section after the expiration of six months from the commencement of ills tenancy on the ground of the rent agreed upon being excessive, be the date of the institution of such suit or such later date as the Court may in the circumstances of the case deem reasonable. The defendants in their written statements did not take the plea that the rent, as agreed to between them and the landlord, was in any way excessive, and that they desired that the standard rent was taken for the first time on July 5, 1976 when the suit was instituted as early as on August 23, 1973. The permission to amend the written Statement, if granted at this stage, would mean permitting the defendants to set up entirely a new case which would be inconsistent with the case with which they came to the Court of law. The proposed amendment of the written statement, if allowed at this stage, would also lead to multiplicity of proceedings. As the question of standard rent was not agitated from the very beginning the plea for fixation of standard rent is still open to the defendant -appellant, and, if he so chooses, he may file a suit under Section 6 of the Act. The application for amendment of the pleadings is hereby dismissed as being without any force.;