K.K. Verma v. Shaukat Khan

1. By this petition petitioner/landlord impugns the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 4.12.2010 by which the Additional Rent Controller allowed the application for amendment filed by the respondent/tenant to amend the written statement.

2. Respondent/tenant in the existing written statement in preliminary objections no.2 and 3 denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and also denied the locus standi of the petitioner-landlord; a position which is reiterated in reply to para 18(a) of the eviction petition; however 2014:DHC:4043 simultaneously in reply to same para 18(a) of the eviction petition, the respondent/tenant admitted that the petitioner-landlord was paid rent at Rs.600/- per month till December, 2000. Also, paras 3(a) and (b) of the eviction petition state that the petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant, and replying to these paras the respondent/tenant has replied that there is no need to reply to paras 3(a) and (b) as the same are matter of record. The respondent/tenant has been allowed by the impugned order to withdraw the averments qua payment of rent @ Rs.600 till December, 2000 as also to deny paras 3(a) & (b) of the eviction petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondent cannot be allowed to withdraw admissions made in the existing written statement of having paid rent to the petitioner at Rs.600/- per month till December, 2000 and that there was no denial to paras 3(a) & (b), because, withdrawal of admissions cannot be allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). It is also argued that the respondent has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant while replying to paras 1 to 5 of the eviction petition qua paras 3(a) and (b) which talk of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and admissions in pleadings create vested rights which cannot be allowed to be taken by calling them ‘amendments’.

4. A reading of the existing written statement shows that two contradictory stands are taken up, first is of denying the relationship of landlord and tenant but simultaneously another stand is taken admitting to paras 3(a) and (b) of the eviction petition which talk of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Also, it has been specifically admitted in para 18(a) of the written statement that respondent had paid rent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month to the petitioner till December 2000. Therefore, there are two specific stands and each of which stand may be destructive of the other. Once a specific stand is raised which are clear admissions, allowing of the amendments would amount to allowing the respondent to withdraw specific admissions, and which is not permissible under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC vide B.K.Narayana Pillai Vs. Parmeswarn Pillai & Anr. 2000 (1 )SCC 712 and S.Malla Reddy Vs. Future Builders Co-operative Housing Society and Ors. AIR 2013 SC 3693.

5. Since it is settled law that by an amendment application admissions existing in pleadings cannot be withdrawn, and considering the facts of the present case where there are specific admissions alongwith contradictory stand of denial, in my opinion, the existing pleadings must be left as they are with whatever consequences are there for the petitioner or the respondent or against the petitioner or the respondent. The respondent hence should not be allowed to withdraw the admissions made with respect to payment of rent to the petitioner and admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant while replying to paras 3(a) and (b) of the eviction petition.

6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 4.12.2010 is set aside. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC of the respondent-tenant will stand dismissed.

AUGUST 21, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib