Vinod Kumar v. Sanjeev Kumar

1. The present petitions have been preferred challenging the impugned orders dated December,2018 rejecting the applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The short point is that the Petitioner, who is the alleged Tenant,wishes to incorporate an objection,in respect ofthe maintainability ofthe Respondent/Landlord's suits in view ofthe bar under Section 185 of The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (the 'DLR Act'), which has been rejected by the Trial Court.

2. The submission of Id. counsel for the Tenant is that the Tenant had initially raised an objection as to the maintainability ofthe suits in view of the provisionsoftheDLR Act. However,thesame wasrejected bythe Trial Court. Thereafter, applications under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC were filed by the Landlord, which were dismissed vide orders dated 2V^ April,

2016. The Landlord had preferred appeals against the said orders, which were withdrawn on 19^*^ December,2017in orderto file an application under CM(M)97/2019&98/2019 Page[1] of[3] 2019:DHC:7987 Order 15 A CPG. The Tenant, during the pendency of the appeal, had moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to incorporate objections as to maintainability ofthe suits in view ofthe bar underthe DLR Act. The amendments had been refused by the Trial Court on the ground that they have been moved at a belated stage as the issues had already been framed in the suits on September,2015 and trial has commenced.

3. Ld. counsel for the Tenant submits that the issue of nonmaintainability ofthe suits in view ofthe provisions ofthe DLR Act is a legal issue and oughtto have been permitted by the Trial Court.On the other hand. Id. counsel for the Landlord submits that the premises are shops and the area is also urbanised,so the question as to whetherthe DLR Act applies or not does not even arise.

4. The Court has perused the applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The paragraph,which are soughtto be incorporated in the written statements reads as under: "2. That the suit ofthe Plaintiffis not maintainable as the are in question where the suit propertyfalls is a part andparcel ofvillage Gharoli and it has not been urbanized till date and being a rural village, and the suitland exists on agricultural land ofvillage Gharoli and therefore, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit as Kiran Singh i.e. fatherofthePlaintiffis aBhumidharandthe defendant is a Asamiand no suit can befiledfor ejectmentexcept under the provisions ofSection 185 ofthe D.L.R. Act and it also debars thejurisdiction ofany other court to entertain the present case except by the court of Revenue Assistant/SDM. "

5. The said amendments,which the Tenant sought to incorporate in the written statements, were clearly at a belated stage i.e. after the firaming of CM(M)97/2019&98/2019 ^ issues, after the evidence had already been commenced, the Land.lord had filed the affidavit in evidence of three witnesses, and in respect of one witness, cross-examination had already begun. Thus,the amendment ofthe written statements cannot be permitted atthis stage.

6. However, the question as to the bar under the DLR Act, cannot be decided on merits at this stage, while considering the amendment applications. While the amendment is not being permitted, an additional issue is framed to the following effect: Whether thesuitis barred byprovisions oftheDLR Act? OPD

7. The above issue being a legal issue,no evidence would be required to be led in respect ofthe above issue. After conclusion ofevidence,the Trial Court would decide all the issues framed earlier, including the issue framed hereinabove at the stage offinal adjudication ofthe suits. No amendmentin the pleadings is being permitted.

8. This Court has not examined the question as to whether the nature of the properties has been changed or whether the DLR Act even applies. The same oughtto be adjudicated atthe final stage and the issue is being framed, in order to obviate any challenge to the finaljudgmentin this regard.

9. With these observations, both the petitions and pending applications are disposed of. / PRATHIBA M.SINGH,J.