By the proposed amendment the defendant wanted to say that Ala Mohan Das was a permissive occupier instead of owner.
The said amendment application was companytested by the plaintiff.
The defendant filed an application under Section 17 2 and 17 2A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 for short the Act raising certain companytentions including that the relationship of landlord and tenant did number exist between the parties.
The High Court set aside the order of the District Judge.
Hence this appeal.
It is, thereafter, the plaintiff filed petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court.
Thereafter the defendant filed an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Trial Court rejected the application, taking a view that the proposed amendment would be inconsistent and it will have the effect of displacing the plaintiff from admission made by the defendant.
8737 of 2001 J U D G M E N T Shivaraj V. Patil, J. CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant in respect of suit property for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement for building or rebuilding and on the ground of default in payment of rent.
It was number shown as to how any prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff by allowing the amendment a mere delay in filing application for amendment is itself number a ground to reject the same the proposed amendment was necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to avoid further litigation.
OF 2001 Arising out of SLP C No.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The defendant filed a revision petition against the said order under Section 115A of the CPC before the District Judge who allowed the revision petition, reversed the order of the trial companyrt and allowed the amendment application filed by the defendant.
Per companytra, the learned companynsel for the respondent made submissions supporting the impugned order passed by the High Court.
OF 2001 Arising out of SLP C No.3581 of 2001 Leave granted.
This appeal by the defendant in the suit, aggrieved by and directed against the order dated 15th September, 2000 made in CO 665 of 2000.
