* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + C.M(M) No.1679 of 2007 % Date of decision: 14.01.2008 Chattar Singh & Anr. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.S. Hora, Advocate versus The Muntgumari Co-operative ..... Respondent Transport Society Ltd. Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? VIPIN SANGHI, J 1. This petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to impugn the order passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal in RCA 137/2007 dated 29.09.2007. The eviction petition had been filed by the respondent/landlord on the ground of sub-letting of the tenanted premises by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner No.2. The petitioner/tenant moved an application for amendment of the written statement after the evidence of the respondent/landlord has been concluded and after having taken more C.M(M) No.1679/2007 Page 1 of 5 than 10 opportunities to conclude their evidence. The amendment was sought to incorporate a plea of partnership between the petitioners herein for carrying on business of godown keeping in a portion of the tenanted property and by producing documents which were not even filed on record till the application was moved after more than 5 years of the filing of eviction petition. The learned Additional Rent Controller rejected the application for amendment filed by the petitioners on 19.05.2007 and the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, has been dismissed by the impugned order. 2. The petitioners did not plead that there was any partnership between then, when the written statement was originally filed. The plea originally taken by them was entirely different. A specific averment was made in paragraph 18 of the eviction petition by the respondent/landlord that petitioner No.1 herein has sublet/parted with the entire first floor to petitioner No.2 herein (and the erstwhile respondent No.3), though petitioner No.1 was using it for residential purpose. It was further pleaded that the petitioner No.2 had started using the portion as a godown. In response to the said averments, the petitioners herein responded with the following averments: “18(a)(1) para 18(a)(1) of the petition is wrong and denied. The respondent no.1 has not subletted or parted with the entire first floor to respondent nos.2 & 3. It is wrong and C.M(M) No.1679/2007 Page 2 of 5 denied that respondent no.2 started using portion of the property as godown but it is submitted that the respondent no.1 is using the portion as godown and the petitioner was was receiving and has received the rent as godown charges. The part of the premises i.e., 8710/15 is used as residential by respondent no.2 being the member of joint family of respondent no.1 as respondent no.1 is now residing in a separate house due to increase of members in the family. The allegation of subletting by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2 & 3 is wrong and denied and the site plan annexed by the petitioner is also wrong and denied. Para no.19 of the petition is wrong and denied. The premises are not being misused as alleged. The respondent no.1 though shifted to other residence due to increase of members in the joint family and also the marriage of respondent no.1 and his sons but a portion of the premises is used as godown by respondent no.1 and the petitioner accepted the rent of the same as godown charges and the part of the portion is occupied by the respondent no.2 for residential purposes as being the member of the joint family and brother of the respondent no.1 since the days of inception of the tenancy. (emphasis supplied) 3. Therefore, the case of the petitioners as originally pleaded was that petitioner No.1 was running a godown in a part of the premises, and petitioner No.2 was residing in a portion of the premises being a member of the joint family of petitioner No.1. There was absolutely no mention of any partnership business between the two petitioners. C.M(M) No.1679/2007 Page 3 of 5 4. The learned Rent Control Tribunal further records that even though the respondent/landlord has closed his evidence before 21.10.2003 and the case was fixed for the petitioners' evidence on that day, they though took 14 opportunities to complete their evidence and the application seeking amendment was filed only on 05.09.2005 when the matter was fixed only for recording the statement of one more witness of the petitioners herein. The witnesses produced by the petitioners had not made any statement with regard to the partnership as a defence to the plea of sub-letting. The learned tribunal has also taken note of the fact that by introducing the said amendment the petitioners were also seeking to plead that the purpose of letting was not just residential, but also commercial. In my view, the petitioner has rightly not been permitted to set up an entirely new case at this belated stage of the proceedings. 5. From the impugned order I find that the learned Rent Control Tribunal has dealt with the submissions of the petitioner exhaustively and no infirmity in the said order has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find no error of jurisdiction or otherwise in the said order which calls for inference by this Court. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with C.M(M) No.1679/2007 Page 4 of 5 the Delhi Legal Services Authority. 7. Petition stands disposed of. VIPIN SANGHI January 14, 2008 JUDGE Rsk C.M(M) No.1679/2007 Page 5 of 5