Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjit Singh vs Mohinder Pal on 13 January, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1994)107PLR619
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner's prayer for amendment of his petition Under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, having been rejected by the trial Court, he has approached this Court through the present revision petition. A few facts may be noticed.
2. The respondent-tenant instituted a suit on August 17, 1992 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-landlord (the petitioner in this Revision Petition) from dispossessing him forcibly from the shop in dispute. In the plaint, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-1 with this revision petition, it was averred in paragraph 1 that the shop had been let out to him at the monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The landlord appeared before the trial Court and deposed on oath that "he never intended to dispossess the plaintiff from the shop in dispute forcibly or by any other illegal means nor he has such intention in future." Accordingly, vide order dated September 14, 1992, Sub Judge 1st Class, Dasuya decreed the suit. After a few days, on September 19, 1992, the landlord-petitioner filed a petition Under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. In this petition, it was mentioned that the rate of rent was Rs. 40/- per month. It was further averred that the tenant-respondent had not paid rent since March 26, 1990. Notice of this petition was given to the respondent-tenant for October 19, 1992. He appeared and tendered the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month w.e.f. March 26, 1990. The case was adjourned to November 16, 1992 for filing of written statement. On that date, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed praying for permission to amend the petition. In this application, it was inter alia mentioned that the rate of rent had been wrongly mentioned as Rs. 40/- per month instead of Rs. 100/- per month. It was further mentioned that the tenant had failed to pay rent since November 1, 1989 instead of March 26, 1990. Consequently, a prayer for permission to amend the petition with regard to the rate of rent and the date from which the respondent-tenant had failed to pay rent was made. Vide order dated August 23, 1993, the learned Rent Controller has rejected this application on the ground that it will amount to withdrawal of admission and setting up of a new case. Hence this petition.
3. I have heard Mr. B.R. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.S. Savra for the respondent-tenant.
4. Without going into the merits of the controversy, the short question is - Can a prayer for amendment of a petition be declined merely on the ground that it would amount to withdrawal of an admission ?
5. There is no provision of law which debars a party from either withdrawing or explaining away a statement of fact. Even if a particular fact has been admitted in the pleadings, the party has a right to amend the pleadings and to prove its case. It cannot be said that an admission of fact made by a party which may be on account of an inadvertent mistake or otherwise, can never be withdrawn. If such a course is adopted, it may result in substantial miscarriage of justice. The normal rule is that a prayer for amendment should be allowed and the other party should be compensated by payment of costs.
6. In the present case, the amendment sought to be made by the petitioner is not likely to cause any prejudice whatsoever to the respondent. Admittedly the case was at its initial stage. The case had been fixed for filing of written statement on November 16,1992. On the same day, even though the written statement had been filed, the petitioner had moved the application under Order 6 Rule 17. The mere fact that the petitioner was wanting to alter the rate of rent or the date from which the arrears were due, could not be the ground for rejecting his prayer. The petitioner-landlord had a right to prove the actual rate of rent as also the date from which the respondent-tenant had defaulted in making the payment. The respondent-tenant will of course be entitled to show that the claim is not tenable. However, there was no reason to reject the application for permission to amend the petition.
7. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Rent Controller cannot be sustained. It is set aside. The revision petition is accepted. However, it is clarified that it would be open to the respondent-tenant to file the written statement to the amended petition and to tender such arrears of rent as he may be advised. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the arrears of rent maybe tendered on or before the date of settlement of the issues. The prayer for amendment is, however, allowed subject to the payment of Rs. 500/- as costs.