Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a tenant, filed writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Rent Controller, Panaji, dated 23.7.2004, as upheld by the Administrative Tribunal on 10.12.2004, which dismissed his application for amendment of his written statement. The tenant sought to withdraw the plea of permanent tenancy that he had earlier taken in eviction proceedings filed by the respondent landlords under Section 22(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the G.D.D. Buildings (L.R.E.) Act, 1968. The eviction proceedings were initiated in respect of two floors of a building known as 'Hotel Imperial'. The tenant filed a written statement on 16.12.1991 denying the landlords' case. On 7.7.1993, he filed an amendment application claiming permanent tenancy based on a sale deed dated 29.4.1958, asserting that the court had no jurisdiction. This led to an inquiry under Section 21 of the Act, which commenced in 1994. When the inquiry was about to conclude, the landlords filed an amendment application to add an additional ground of eviction based on the tenant's mala fide claim of permanent tenancy, relying on J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. v. M.R. Murali (2002) 3 SCC 98. The Rent Controller allowed the landlords' amendment and, on 27.12.1999, ordered the tenant's eviction, finding the permanent tenancy claim mala fide. The tenant appealed to the Administrative Tribunal, which remanded the matter for fresh inquiry. The landlords' review was dismissed on 2.12.2003, and their writ petition (W.P. No.651/2003) was dismissed on 29.1.2004 with liberty to file an amendment application. Thereafter, the tenant filed the present amendment application to withdraw the plea of permanent tenancy, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Tribunal. The High Court held that the amendment was not bona fide and was barred by laches, as it was filed after 12 years and after the issue had been decided. The court noted that the tenant had taken a specific stand of permanent tenancy, which led to a full inquiry, and allowing withdrawal would prejudice the landlords. The petitions were dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Withdrawal of Admission - Laches - The tenant sought to amend his written statement to withdraw the plea of permanent tenancy after 12 years, after the Rent Controller had already decided the issue against him. The court held that the amendment was not bona fide and was barred by laches, as it would prejudice the landlords who had already led evidence on the issue. (Paras 2-10) B) Rent Control - Eviction Proceedings - Permanent Tenancy - Section 21 of G.D.D. Buildings (L.R.E.) Act, 1968 - The tenant had claimed permanent tenancy, which led to an inquiry under Section 21. The Rent Controller found the claim mala fide and ordered eviction. The tenant's subsequent attempt to withdraw the plea was seen as an abuse of process. (Paras 3-8) C) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - The High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and Administrative Tribunal dismissing the tenant's amendment application, as no error of jurisdiction was shown. (Paras 1, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant's application for amendment of written statement to withdraw the plea of permanent tenancy, filed after 12 years and after the Rent Controller had already decided the issue, should be allowed.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed both writ petitions with costs of Rs. 5,000, upholding the orders of the Rent Controller and Administrative Tribunal.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Withdrawal of admission
- Laches
- Bona fides
- Rent control
- Permanent tenancy
- Section 21 of G.D.D. Buildings (L.R.E.) Act
- 1968
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
