Delhi District Court
Surinder Gupta vs Sh. Chaudhary Ajay Raj on 9 July, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR: DISTRICT
& SESSIONS JUDGE/RCT, SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
RCT No. 43/19
Surinder Gupta
S/o Shri Chand Kiran Gupta
R/o A-82,Surajmal Vihar
Delhi-110092
...... Appellant
Versus
Sh. Chaudhary Ajay Raj
S/o Sh. Subhash Chander
R/o H. No. 20, 1st Floor
East Azad Nagar, Main Road
Delhi
Also at :
Chamber No. 703, G-Block
Karkardooma Courts
Delhi.
...... Respondent
Date of filing : 15.10.2019
Date of arguments : 09.07.2020
Date of Judgment : 09.07.2020
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal was taken up for hearing arguments and for disposal through Video Conference Hearing on Cisco WebEx platform in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High RCT No.43/19 No.43/19 Surinder Gupta vs. Chaudhary Ajay Ajay Raj Page No. 1 of 8 Court of Delhi due to pandemic of Covid-19.
2. This is an appeal under Section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, against the order dated 18.09.2019 passed in Eviction Petition bearing ARC No. 320/2017 by Sh. Harvinder Singh, Ld. ACJ- CCJ-ARC, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi (in short the impugned order), whereby the Ld. ARC allowed the respondent to file additional/amended written statement regarding the new site plan filed by the petitioner-therein/appellant-herein.
3. The brief facts of the appeal are that the petitioner-therein / appellant-herein filed the eviction petition u/s 14(1)(a) DRC Act against the respondent-therein/ respondent-herein. At the time of filing of eviction petition, the appellant failed to file the site plan of the tenanted premises, as such, he filed an application u/o 7 Rule 14 CPC r/w/s 151 CPC, which was allowed and site plan came on record. Thereafter, the appellant again moved an application dt.05.12.2018 u/s 151 CPC before the Ld. Trial Court that the tenancy portion of the respondent has been wrongly shown in the site plan which needs to be corrected and appellant also filed a fresh/correct site plan. The respondent filed reply to that application and matter was listed for RCT No.43/19 No.43/19 Surinder Gupta vs. Chaudhary Ajay Ajay Raj Page No. 2 of 8 arguments u/s 15(1) of DRC Act vide order dt. 06.02.2019. However, vide the impugned order dt. 18.09.2019, during the course of arguments u/s 15(1) of DRC Act, the Ld. ARC allowed the respondent to file amended / additional written statement.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the said impugned order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal on the grounds among others that the Ld. ARC failed to consider that since 05.12.2018 to 18.09.2019, the respondent had not taken any step for filing the amended written statement before the Ld. Trial Court. The Ld. ARC gave the permission to the respondent to file amended written statement without filing of any application on behalf of the respondent in this regard. There is no provision under law that a written statement can be amended without having any application u/o 6 Rule 17 CPC and court can suo moto gives the permission to amend the pleadings without any rhymes and reasons.
5. The respondent herein has not filed reply to the appeal, however, he has opposed the appeal.
RCT No.43/19
No.43/19 Surinder Gupta vs. Chaudhary Ajay Ajay Raj Page No. 3 of 8
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Ld. counsel for respondent through Video Conference hearing on Cisco WebEx platform and also carefully gone through the written arguments/synopsis filed on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the parties and impugned order as well as the materials on record.
7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that no application was filed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent for amendment of the WS and the appellant is not aware what proposed amendment in the WS was to be made. Therefore, the Ld. Trial Court erred while passing the impugned order dt.18.09.2019. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent had a sufficient time to file amended written statement before the Ld. ARC but he has neither moved any application in this regard nor requested to the Ld. Trial Court.
8. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that this appeal is not maintainable since no question of law has been raised in this appeal. The appellant did not object to the submissions/arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent for permission to amend the WS after filing of the site plan by the appellant before the Ld. Trial Court. RCT No.43/19
No.43/19 Surinder Gupta vs. Chaudhary Ajay Ajay Raj Page No. 4 of 8 The respondent has been allowed to amend the written statement and to incorporate the new defence qua the new site plan. The appellant did not have any objection on even a single occasion for non-filing of an application u/o 6 Rule 17 CPC by the respondent before the Ld. Trial Court at the time of arguments and even for delay in filing of the WS and the Ld. Trial Court burdened the respondent with the cost of Rs.2000 /- to be paid to the appellant.
9. Ld. Counsel for the appellant raised the main objections /grounds in the appeal that the respondent did not take any step for amendment of the WS from 05.12.2018 to 18.09.2019 before the Ld. Trial Court and without opportunity given to the petitioner, the respondent was allowed to amend the written statement and even no application was filed for amendment of the WS u/o 6 Rule 17 CPC. The Ld. Trial Court also did not appreciate as to what proposed amendment is to be sought by the respondent.
10. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent raised the objections to the appeal on the ground that this appeal is not maintainable since the appellant has failed to raise any question of law in this appeal. The RCT No.43/19 No.43/19 Surinder Gupta vs. Chaudhary Ajay Ajay Raj Page No. 5 of 8 appellant filed a different and a new site plan and it was a second occasion, the change of site plan request was placed before the Ld. Trial Court and the amendment to his written statement to incorporate new defence in view of the new site plan was required, which was allowed by the Ld. Trial Court. The appellant / petitioner did not raise any objection on any occasion for non-filing of the application u/o 6 Rule 17 CPC by the respondent before the Ld. Trial Court. The impugned order dt.18.09.2019 was passed by the Ld. Trial Court in the presence of both the parties.
11. During arguments on this appeal, the Ld. counsel for the appellant has also argued that if this court considers to allow the respondent for filing of the amended written statement as per the impugned order dt.18.09.2019 of the Ld. Trial Court, the respondent may not be allowed to propose any new defence in the amended written statement except the defence qua the site plan which was allowed by the Ld. Trial Court to be taken on record. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent has also argued that he would raise the objections / defence against the said site plan filed by the petitioner / appellant in RCT No.43/19 No.43/19 Surinder Gupta vs. Chaudhary Ajay Ajay Raj Page No. 6 of 8 amended written statement.
12. The appellant herein filed the petition before the Ld. Trial Court for eviction of the tenant u/s 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act. The Ld. ARC, during the arguments u/s 15(1) of DRC Act, vide the impugned order dt.18.09.2019, observed that since new site plan was filed by the petitioner side, therefore, the respondent should be allowed to file additional/amended written statement regarding the same. However, the Ld. Trial Court after considering the delay in filing the same, granted opportunity for the same only subject to cost of Rs.2000/- to be paid to the petitioner side.
13. In view of the above facts and circumstances, impugned order dt.18.09.2019, written arguments as well as the oral arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the Ld. Trial Court, after the arguments / submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the parties and having gone through the records, allowed the respondent to file the amended/additional written statement and even cost of Rs.2,000/- was also imposed for delay in filing the same to be paid to the petitioner. Meaning thereby, the petitioner did not RCT No.43/19 No.43/19 Surinder Gupta vs. Chaudhary Ajay Ajay Raj Page No. 7 of 8 raise any objection for not filing any application u/o 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement. Considering the above arguments and discussion, the respondent shall only be allowed to file amended written statement raising the additional defence only to the said new site plan filed by the petitioner before the Ld. Trial Court, which has also been agreed to by the Ld. Counsel for the parties during arguments on this appeal. With these directions, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Trial Court record along with copy of this judgment be sent back. File of appeal be consigned to Record Room.
YASHWANT Digitally signed by YASHWANT
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2020.07.09 18:10:34 +05'30'
Announced through video
conference on Cisco WebEx (YASHWANT KUMAR)
during pandemic of Covid-19 District & Sessions Judge/RCT
on 09th day of July 2020 Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi
RCT No.43/19
No.43/19 Surinder Gupta vs. Chaudhary Ajay
Ajay Raj Page No. 8 of 8