Judgment:
THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3109 OF201427-12-2014 M/S.Narahari Kirana Shop rep., by its Prop.B.Bharathi, Hyderabad road, Nizamabad..Petitioners.K.Kishore Reddy and 2 others....Respondents.
Counsel for PetitioneRs.Sr.P.
Bhaskar Counsel for Respondents: K.
Ravi Mahender ?.
Cases referred: AIR2009Supreme Court 1177 2.AIR2012Supreme court 1887 3.2013(2) ALD284.(1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 278 5.(2012) 11 Supreme Court Cases 405 6.
(2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 349 THE HONOURABLE Sr.JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3109 OF2014ORDER
: The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant against the order dated 09.06.2014, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad in I.A.No.945 of 2013 in O.S.No.140 of 2012, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to permit the petitioner/defendant to amend her written statement filed in the suit, was dismissed.
Heard Sr.P.
Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Sr.K.
Ravi Mahender, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.
The facts are not in dispute.
The respondents/plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property consisting of 2 mulgies with built up area of 650 sq.
feet and the petitioner/defendant is the tenant of the said property.
The suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking eviction of the petitioner/defendant.
Prior to filing of the suit, a legal notice dated 08.05.2012 was issued by the respondents/plaintiffs to the petitioner/defendant requesting him to vacate the leased premises and to hand over the same to the respondents/plaintiffs.
In the legal notice, it was also stated that the premises were let out on a monthly rent of Rs.6,750/-.
The petitioner was put on notice that if the leased premises are not vacated and handed over the possession to the respondents/plaintiffs, the respondents/plaintiffs within 15 days of receipt of notice, the respondents/plaintiffs would also claim damages at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month for illegal occupation of the premises from the date of termination of the tenancy.
This legal notice came to be replied on behalf of the petitioner/defendant admitting the tenancy and the ownership of the respondents/plaintiffs and also the rent payable as Rs.6,750/- per month.
As the petitioner/defendant failed to vacate the premises even after the receipt of the legal notice got issued by the respondents/plaintiffs, the suit in O.S.No.140 of 2012 seeking the eviction of the petitioner/defendant, was filed.
A written statement was filed by the petitioner/defendant admitting the factum of tenancy and the monthly rent.
In the written statement a further plea about the invalidity of the notice dated 11.05.2003 on the ground of the same being illegal and void was also taken.
Record discloses that by order dated 09.07.2013 in I.A.No.710 of 2013 in O.S.No.140 of 2012, the Court below allowed the petitioner/defendant to add para Nos.12 to 14 in the written statement.
The application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C for the amendment of written statement is to add the following averments: Para 15) That the defendant obtained two and half mulgies in the year 2002 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,800/- for each mulgie (the total rent is Rs.4,500/-) from its original owner, the rent enhanced to Rs.2,700/- per month for each mulgie, (the total rent is Rs.6,750/-).For the convenient purpose the defendant paid lump sum.
As per the knowledge received by the defendant.
According to the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction Control Act, 1960) the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is not maintainable as the Honble Court as no jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Rent Control Act is only applicable to the plaintiff and defendant and the civil suit is not maintainable.
The said application was dismissed by the Court below.
Hence, Civil Revision Petition.
In the light of the undisputed facts as stated above, the question which falls for consideration before this Court is whether the impugned order is liable to be interfered with by this Court and whether it suffers from either error of jurisdiction or an illegality.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant relied upon the following reported judgments to support his case: 1.
South Konkan Distilleries and another v.
Prabhakar Ganjanan Naik and others .
2.
Rameshkumar Agarwal v.
Rajmala Exports PVT.Ltd., and others .
3.
Kalyani Gerdau Steels Ltd., Jambulapudu Village, Tadipatri (M).Anantapur District v.
Balireddygari Nagalakshmamma and otheRs.Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs relied upon the following reported judgments to support his case: 1.
Heeralal versus Kalyan Mal and others 2.
Payal Vision Limited versus Radhika Choudhary 3.S.Malla Reddy versus Future Builders Cooperative Housing Society and others The case of petitioner is that in the written statement filed, at the fiRs.instance, the petitioner while admitting the tenancy, by inadvertence did not specify that the rent being paid was originally at the rate of Rs.1,800/- per month for each mulgi which later came to be enhanced to Rs.2,700/- per month and it is only for the sake of convenience a lump sum amount Rs.6,750/- was being paid.
Inasmuch as the rent payable was below the statutorily fixed limit under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction Control) Act, 1960 (for short, the Act).O.S.No.140 of 2012 is not maintainable and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the Rent Control Court alone is the competent Court to try the suit.
It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs that if the amendment is allowed, the same would have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad and would definitely cause prejudice to the case of the plaintiff.
There can be no quarrel with the law laid down in the three judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
As a matter of fact, the Honble Supreme Court in Rameshkumar Agarwal (2 supra) in para Nos.10 and 11 had summarized the factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with the applications for amendments, which reads as under: 10.
In Revajeetu Builders and Developers v.
Narayanaswamy and Sons and ORS.(2009) 10 SCC84 (AIR2009SC (Supp) 2897: 2009 AIR SCW6644, this Court once again considered the scope of amendment of pleadings.
In paragraph 63, it concluded as follows: Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with applications for amendments.
63.
On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective @ page-SC1890Adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.
These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17.
These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
11.
It is clear that while deciding the application for amendment ordinarily the Court must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit malafide and dishonest amendments.
The purpose and object of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just.
Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical approach.
Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly, in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs.
Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations.
Applying the law laid down by the Apex to the present set of facts, it is clear that the conditions 3, 4 and 5 of the Para No.10 of the said judgment are attracted.
So far as the judgment reported in Kalyani Gerdau Steels Ltd.,(3 supra) is concerned, the same is not relevant and does not apply to the facts situation in the present case.
On the other hand, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Heeralal versus Kalyan Mal and others (4 supra) relied upon the by leaned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs is apt in the facts situation.
As stated supra, the petitioner/defendant had admitted the factum of tenancy and the plea that is sought to be introduced now was not put forward at the earliest point of time either while replying to the legal notice got issued by the respondents/plaintiffs or while filing the written statement, at the fiRs.instance or at the earliest when he had sought amendment of the written statement vide I.A.No.710 of 2013.
As held by the Supreme Court in the above referred judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, if the amendment to the written statement is allowed, it would completely efface the admissions by pleading from the earliest opportunity in the litigation.
The effort through amendment is to oust the jurisdiction of the Court.
Such amendments cannot be allowed.
The Court below had considered this precise aspect which is inconformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
In those circumstances, the petitioner/defendant has not made out a case for interference by this Court with the orders of the Court below and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this revision petition shall stand dismissed.
____________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM Date:27.12.2014