GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG. (WVG.) CO. LTD. Vs. CHANDRIKA GUTTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of the defendants' application under order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in their written statements. By way of proposed amendment the defendants seek to insert the few lines towards the close of their preliminary objection No. 1 which is identical in all the written statements filed separately by the defendants. Defendants 1 and 2 have, however, filed only one joint written statement. The following lines are sought to be added to preliminary objection No. 1 of the written statements :-

(2.) THE suit of the plaintiff against the defendants is for the recovery of possession of the property in suit, damages for use and occupation and price of the furniture. The suit for possession is based on the averments that Shri H.G. Guttal was the employee of the plaintiff company and in that capacity had been given free furnished accommodation on the first floor of the premises No. 10, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, together with two servant quarters, one garage and barsati and terrace and one store room by the plaintiff company which was itself a tenant in respect thereof under the landlord Roop Narain Khanna. It is further alleged that H.G. Guttal was only a licensee of the plaintiff in the aforesaid premises.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that this application for amendment is mala fide inasmuch as it was nowhere stated in the written statements by any of the defendants that H.G. Guttal was in occupation of the premises in question as a tenant under the plaintiff and that, on the other hand, there was in fact no denial on their part of the specific pleas taken by the plaintiff in the plaint that H.G. Guttal had been given the said premises by the plaintiff company being its employee free of any changes and that his possession was only as a licensee of the plaintiff. On the contrary, learned counsel for the defendants has contended that the defendants had made reference in their written statements to Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, necessarily implying thereby that H.G. Guttal was in occupation of the premises in question as a tenant of the plaintiff because the tenancy of the employee is a necessary ingredient in that provision of law and that now the defendants simply want to clarify specifically by means of the proposed amendment that H.G. Gutta was living as a tenant of the of proposed amendment that H.G. Guttal was living as a tenant of the plaintiff in the premises in question as an employee of the plaintiff company.