High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
United India Insurance Company Limited v. Dr. O.P. Bajaj - CIVIL REVISION No. 308 of 2007  RD-AH 13589 (6 August 2007)
Hon. Janardan Sahai,J
A suit for rent and ejectment was filed by the respondent against the applicant. It was alleged that U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable to the building in dispute as the rate of rent is more than Rs.2000/- per month. The suit is being contested by the applicant who has filed a written statement. The application for amendment of the written statement whereby the applicant has sought to introduce the plea that it has deposited the entire rent on the date of first hearing and is entitled to the protection of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act has been rejected by the impugned order.
I have hard Sri N.K.Srivastava counsel for the applicant and Sri Amitabh Agarwal counsel for the respondent.
It was submitted by the applicant's counsel that the trial court has rejected the amendment application only on the ground that under the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC no amendment after the issues have been framed is not permissible. It is no doubt true that the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC does not impose an absolute bar upon the power of the court to allow the amendment after the framing of issues. However there is another ground upon which the amendment is liable to be rejected. The copy of the plaint has been filed. It is not the plaintiff's case that there was any condition in the lease that in case of default in payment of rent or upon breach of the conditions of lease the tenancy would be determined by forfeiture and the lessor would have a right of reentry. Sri Amitabh Agarwal who appeared for the respondent made a categorical statement that the plaintiff is not basing his case under Section 111(g) of the Act. Although in the plaint there is an averment that the defendant is in arrears of rent but there is nothing to show that the suit is based upon Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act claiming re entry on the ground that the tenancy has been determined by forfeiture. The question of taking the defence of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act therefore does not arise. In the facts and circumstances the amendment was liable to be rejected. The order calls for no interference. Dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.