1994 JTR(SC) 291
1996 2 RentLR 672 ; 1995 Supp3 SCC 179
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.L.Hansaria : S.Mohan
Basavan Jaggu Dhobi
Versus
Sukhnandan Ramdas Chaudhary
Case No. : 3778 of 1988
Date of Decision : 2/24/94
A defendant may amend a written statement to take contradictory stands under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Furthermore, licensees in occupation of premises on February 1, 1973, are deemed tenants under Section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Act
Referred
:BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT: S.15(a)
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
: O.6 R.17
EASEMENTS ACT: S.52
(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 6 Rule 17 - Amendment of written statement - It is open to a defendant to amend a written statement to take a contrary or contradictory stand from what was originally stated, provided the cause of action is not affected. (Para 3)
(B) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Section 15-A - Deemed tenancy - Where any person is in occupation of any premises as a licensee on 1st February 1973, such person shall be deemed to have become, for the purpose of the Act, the tenant of the landlord. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A landlord sought to evict a licensee under the Presidency Small Causes Court Act following the termination of a leave and license agreement. The licensee initially contended that he was a joint tenant, a plea that was rejected by the lower courts. The licensee then sought to amend the written statement to take an alternative plea and claimed protection under the rent control legislation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the lower courts erred in holding that a defendant cannot amend a written statement to take a contrary stand and in overlooking the beneficial provisions of Section 15-A of the rent control act.
Issues: Whether a defendant is permitted to amend a written statement to take a contradictory stand under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, and whether a licensee in occupation of premises on 1st February 1973 is entitled to the protection of Section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that settled law allows a defendant to take contradictory stands in an amended written statement as long as the cause of action is not affected. Additionally, Section 15-A of the Act explicitly provides that any licensee in occupation of premises on 1st February 1973 is deemed to be a tenant.
Result: Appellant is entitled to succeed.
(B) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Section 15-A - Deemed tenancy - Where any person is in occupation of any premises as a licensee on 1st February 1973, such person shall be deemed to have become, for the purpose of the Act, the tenant of the landlord. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A landlord sought to evict a licensee under the Presidency Small Causes Court Act following the termination of a leave and license agreement. The licensee initially contended that he was a joint tenant, a plea that was rejected by the lower courts. The licensee then sought to amend the written statement to take an alternative plea and claimed protection under the rent control legislation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the lower courts erred in holding that a defendant cannot amend a written statement to take a contrary stand and in overlooking the beneficial provisions of Section 15-A of the rent control act.
Issues: Whether a defendant is permitted to amend a written statement to take a contradictory stand under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, and whether a licensee in occupation of premises on 1st February 1973 is entitled to the protection of Section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that settled law allows a defendant to take contradictory stands in an amended written statement as long as the cause of action is not affected. Additionally, Section 15-A of the Act explicitly provides that any licensee in occupation of premises on 1st February 1973 is deemed to be a tenant.
Result: Appellant is entitled to succeed.
Licensee - The respondent argued that based on this ruling, a licensee cannot obtain protection under Section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
(1) WE have heard both the learned counsel at length. The respondent-landlord sought to evict the appellant under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes court Act, staling that the leave and licence granted in favour of the appellant came to be terminated by notice dated 14/5/1974. Thereafter he had no right to remain in possession and he was liable to be evicted. In defence, what the appellant urged that he was a joint tenant along with others. That plea of joint tenancy has been negatived by the courts below. In this appeal, it is urged before us that the courts below have gone wrong on two counts - (i) that by amending a written statement, an alternative plea opposed to the original stand of the defendant was not permissible; (ii) the courts below have overlooked the beneficial provision of Section 15-A available to the appellant under BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT , 1947. Should this court accept these submission, the appellant is entitled to succeed.
(2) THE stand of the appellant is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent urging that having regard to the ruling in D.H. Manier v. Woman Laxman Kudav even on the basis that the appellant is a licensee, he cannot get the protection of Section 15-A.
(3) AS regards the first contention, we are afraid that the courts below have gone wrong in holding that it is not open to the defendant to amend his written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code by taking a contrary stand than what was stated originally in the written statement. This is opposed to the settled law. It is open to a defendant to take even contrary stands or contradictory stands, thereby the cause of action is not in any manner affected. That will apply only to a case of the plaint being amended so as to introduce a new cause of action. Be that so.
(4) IN this case, undoubtedly, the appellant will be entitled to the protection of Section 15-A of the BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The reason is Section 15-A in no uncertain terms states as follows :
"15-A. (1 Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or anything contrary in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract, where any person is on the 1st day of February, 1973 in occupation of any premises, or any part thereof which is not less than a room, as a licensee he shall on that date be deemed to have become, for the purpose of this Act, the tenant of the landlord, in respect of the premises or part thereof, in his occupation."