Or.6, rule 17 C.P.C - amendment of written statement /counter on subsequent events pending rent control appeal - lower court dismissed the same- High court held that admittedly he is on rent/lease and further Rule 17 of Order VI CPC was substantially amended with the addition of the proviso. It prohibits amendment of the pleadings once the trial of a suit or petition commences. In the instant case, the amendment is sought to be made at the stage of appeal. The learned Chief Judge took note of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and expressed the view that amendment at this stage is not permissible. Second and more important reason is that the proposed amendment does not have any bearing upon the subject matter of the suit, at all. Even if the execution of deed of settlement by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of respondents 3 to 5 or the execution of an agreement of sale in favour of third parties by the children of respondents 1 and 2 is proved, the same cannot be treated as relevant to the appeal.= CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1509 OF 2014 07-08-2014 Hazari Sanjay singh... PETITIONER S.Kondaiah and five others RESPONDENT = 2014 - Aug. Month - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11831

Or.6, rule 17 C.P.C - amendment of written statement /counter on subsequent events pending rent control appeal - lower court dismissed the same- High court held that admittedly he is on rent/lease and further  Rule 17 of Order VI CPC was substantially amended with the addition of the proviso.  It prohibits amendment of the pleadings once the trial of a suit or petition commences. In the instant case, the amendment is sought to be made at the stage of appeal.  The learned Chief Judge took note of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and expressed the view that  amendment at this stage is not permissible.  Second and more important reason is that the proposed amendment does not have any bearing upon the subject matter of the suit, at all.  Even if the execution of deed of settlement by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of respondents 3 to 5 or the execution of an agreement of sale in favour of third parties by the children of respondents 1 and 2 is proved, the same cannot be treated as relevant to the appeal.=

The petitioner did not dispute the fact that he is a
tenant of the respondents.  R.C No.83 of 2007 filed by
respondents 1 and 2 against the petitioner was allowed and
the order of eviction was passed.  At the stage of appeal, the
petitioner wants to amend the counter filed in the R.C.

      Rule 17 of Order VI CPC was substantially amended
with the addition of the proviso.  It prohibits amendment of
the pleadings once the trial of a suit or petition commences.
In the instant case, the amendment is sought to be made at
the stage of appeal.  The learned Chief Judge took note of
Order VI Rule 17 CPC and expressed the view that
amendment at this stage is not permissible.  Second and
more important reason is that the proposed amendment does
not have any bearing upon the subject matter of the suit, at
all.  Even if the execution of deed of settlement by
respondents 1 and 2 in favour of respondents 3 to 5 or the
execution of an agreement of sale in favour of third parties by
the children of respondents 1 and 2 is proved, the same
cannot be treated as relevant to the appeal.

      As of now, the respondents did not part with their title
to the property.  Mere pendency of a suit for specific
performance filed by a third party against the respondents
cannot be a ground to resist the eviction proceedings.  Even
while admitting that he is the tenant of the respondents, the
petitioner is creating every possible trouble for the
respondents and is squatting on the property.  This Court
does not approve of the conduct of the petitioner.  The lower
appellate Court has taken the correct view of the matter and
no interference is warranted with the order under revision.

      The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed.

2014 - Aug. Month - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11831  

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY        

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1509 OF 2014    

07-08-2014

Hazari Sanjay singh... PETITIONER

S.Kondaiah and five others RESPONDENT    

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Srinivas Emani

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri D. Seshasayana Reddy

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?Cases referred

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY        

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1509 OF 2014    

Dated:07-08-2014

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY        

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1509 OF 2014    

ORDER:


      Respondents 1 and 2 are spouses.  The petitioner is
their tenant.  Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S No. 562 of 2003
in the Court of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad for eviction of the petitioner.  In his written
statement, the petitioner admitted that he is a tenant of
respondents 1 and 2.  However, he raised the plea that the
rent is only Rs.600/- excluding electricity charges and in that
view of the matter, the suit is not maintainable.  The suit was
dismissed on 31-08-2006 accepting that plea.  Thereafter,
respondents 1 and 2 filed R.C No. 83 2007 against the
petitioner for eviction pleading the grounds of wilful default in
payment of rents, personal requirement and damage to the
premises.  During the pendency of the R.C, the 2nd
respondent died and the children of respondents 1 and 2 were
brought on record.  The RC was allowed and the order of
eviction was passed against the petitioner.  Thereupon, he
filed R.A No. 230 of 2010 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City
Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

      In the rent appeal, the petitioner filed I.A No. 34 of 2013
under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, with a prayer to permit him to
amend the counter filed in R.C No. 83 of 2007.  He wanted to
plead that respondent Nos.1 and 2 executed a registered
settlement deed in favour of their sons and the latter in turn
executed an agreement of sale in favour of a third party.  It is
also alleged that O.S No.795 of 2011 was filed in the Court of
II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by the
persons in whose favour agreement of sale was executed.  The
petitioner wanted to incorporate these and other relevant
facts in the counter.  The application was opposed by the
respondents.  The lower appellate Court dismissed the I.A
through order dated 11-04-2014.  Hence, the revision.

      Heard Sri Srinivas Emani, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri D. Seshasayana Reddy, learned counsel for
the respondents.

      The petitioner did not dispute the fact that he is a
tenant of the respondents.  R.C No.83 of 2007 filed by
respondents 1 and 2 against the petitioner was allowed and
the order of eviction was passed.  At the stage of appeal, the
petitioner wants to amend the counter filed in the R.C.

      Rule 17 of Order VI CPC was substantially amended
with the addition of the proviso.  It prohibits amendment of
the pleadings once the trial of a suit or petition commences.
In the instant case, the amendment is sought to be made at
the stage of appeal.  The learned Chief Judge took note of
Order VI Rule 17 CPC and expressed the view that 
amendment at this stage is not permissible.  Second and
more important reason is that the proposed amendment does  
not have any bearing upon the subject matter of the suit, at
all.  Even if the execution of deed of settlement by
respondents 1 and 2 in favour of respondents 3 to 5 or the
execution of an agreement of sale in favour of third parties by
the children of respondents 1 and 2 is proved, the same
cannot be treated as relevant to the appeal.

      As of now, the respondents did not part with their title
to the property.  Mere pendency of a suit for specific
performance filed by a third party against the respondents
cannot be a ground to resist the eviction proceedings.  Even
while admitting that he is the tenant of the respondents, the
petitioner is creating every possible trouble for the
respondents and is squatting on the property.  This Court
does not approve of the conduct of the petitioner.  The lower
appellate Court has taken the correct view of the matter and
no interference is warranted with the order under revision.

      The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed.
        
   The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also
stand disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________    
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J    
07-08-2014