THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1289 OF 2014 Dated:07-08-2014 Between:
Maryam Saleh and another
... PETITIONERS
AND
Ali Bin Saleh and another
.. RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1289 OF 2014 ORDER:
The petitioners filed R.C No. 279 of 2011 against the respondents for eviction from premises bearing No.19-1-436/A/77 comprising of ground and first floors at Osman Bagh, Kamatipura, Hyderabad. It was mentioned that the premises was given on lease on 01-08-2010 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month and though the respondents paid rents up to December, 2010, they stopped payment of rents from January, 2011 onwards. The petitioners stated the manner in which they acquired the title to the property. The respondents filed a counter opposing the R.C. The trial of the R.C commenced. At a time when PW 1 was supposed to be cross examined, the respondents filed I.A No. 157 of 2013 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, with a prayer to permit them to amend the counter. In a way, they wanted to dispute the very title of the petitioners. The I.A was opposed by the petitioners by filing a counter affidavit. The learned Rent Controller allowed the I.A through order dated 29-04- 2013. Hence, this C.R.P.
Heard Sri Osman Shaheed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
The R.C was filed mainly on the plea of wilful default in payment of rents. A detailed account as to how the petitioners acquired rights over the property was furnished. In the counter filed by the respondents, they have simply extracted the relevant paragraphs in the R.C and added a phrase “are all false and fictitious and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same”. No independent version of the respondents was presented.
Through the proposed amendment, the respondents intended to assert title in respect of the suit property in themselves. It is not as if any new material was discovered by them after the counter was filed in the R.C. Further, if the respondents did not feel like asserting title in themselves when they filed counter, it is just ununderstandable as to how they can come forward with such a plea at this stage.
The record discloses that the trial of the R.C has already commenced. The bar imposed through proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI comes into play. The only basis on which the Rent Controller allowed the amendment was that the respondents have a good defence for contesting the R.C and if they are not permitted to amend the counter, it will be a great loss to them. That hardly constitutes the basis for permitting the amendment of the pleadings.
The C.R.P is accordingly allowed and the order under revision is set aside.
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
ks