JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 2.4.1998 of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in RCA No.25/1998 whereby the Tribunal has declined to entertain the appeal on the ground that it does not fall within the scope of Section 105 CPC as it is not an appeal against the final order or decree and, therefore, not maintainable.
2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi are as follows:-
".....that the petitioner has sought eviction of th respondent from the tenanted premises bearing No. E-24, Ground Floor, Greater Kailash - I, New Delhi - 110 048 on the grounds that the same are required by them for use as residence for themselves and their family members bonafide. Leave to defend was since not contested, the same was allowed. In his present application under VI Rule 17 CPC respondent tenant sought sought the substitution of para 4 of his written statement as under:-
"That either of the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition. The sale deed of the suit premises is executed by DLF in favor of the petitioner. The said Release Deed is a Sham document and is only a camouflage. The petitioner no.2 continues to be the owner of the suit property. IT is the petitioner no.2 who as owner of the property has been dealing with the said property and including tenants from time to time as could be seen from the documents on record filed by the petitioners themselves. Petitioner no.2 who is the owner and landlord of the premises has not pleaded self-requirements; as such the petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs."
Besides this respondent has sought an additional para 18(a) as under:-
After the words "as alleged" in 4th line of para 18(a) The petitioner no.2 purchased the suit property and continues to be the owner thereof. The petitioner no.2 purchased the land under suit property from DLF vide sale-deed dated 23-7-1964, executed by DLF in favor of petitioner no.2 Kirpal Singh. The petitioners have placed on record a release deed executed in November, 1964 by petitioner no.2 in favor of petitioner no.1. The said release deed is a sham document by which the petitioner no.2 professed to transfer the suit plot to petitioner no.1 without consideration. The said document is in fact a transfer deed and in fact the same cannot be looked into because the same is not bearing the stamp duty as provided under law. The construction on the said plot seems to have been effected by Mrs.J.Kirpal Singh the second wife of petitioner no.2, under contractor's agreement dated 19/11/1966 and it is in that connection that GPA dated 19/11/1966 seems to have been executed by petitioner No.1, giving petitioner No.2 all rights to sell and dispose of the said property. As such the petitioner No.1 has no right title and interest in the property nor any GPA has been executed by petitioner No.1 as has been professedly alleged by the petitioners. The GPA placed on record is with connection of contractor's agreement dated 19/11/1966 giving irrevocable power to petitioner no.2 to dispose of and sell the same as the petitioner no.2 still continues to be the owner of the property and petitioner no.1 has no right, title and interest in the property. The petitioner no.2 has always been dealing the suit property as owner thereof."
In reply to the aforesaid application petitioners have submitted that the respondent has already denied the petitioner no.2 to be the owner of the premises in question. Submission of the petitioners is that the respondent has also pleaded that it is the petitioner no.2 who is the landlord of the premises in question."
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the learned Additional Rent Controller ought not to have allowed the amendment sought under Order 6 rule 17 CPC in view of the categoric stand of the tenant that petitioner no.1 and 2 are both not owners of the premises in question. He submits that a totally inconsistent stand changing the very nature of the admission cannot be allowed. He relies upon a judgment of the Supreme court in Shiromani Gurudwara Committee Vs. Jaswant Singh, JT 1996 (8) SC 292. On the other hand counsel for the respondent contends that there is no inconsistency in the stand and that by way of an affidavit under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) as also in his written statement he categorically denies the ownership of petitioner no.1. However, to boost his case, based on the documents of the petitioners he wishes to take an additional plea to the effect that petitioner no.2 is the owner, which fact he has come to know only on going through the documents filed by the petitioners.
4. Having heard the parties and perused the order under challenge as also the material placed on record it appears to me that the petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act was filed by the first and the second petitioner before the Additional Rent Controller wherein the ground for eviction was bona fide requirement of the premises in question, for the purpose of residence of petitioner no.1, Shri Kushal Pal Singh. Respondent sought leave to defend under Section 25B of the Act on the ground that petitioner no.1 as also petitioner no.2 are not owners of the premises in question, which became a friable issue, leave to defend was not contested, consequently granted. During proceedings documents were filed by the landlord, petitioner herein and evidence led. After examination-in-chief of the petitioners was concluded, documents exhibited and before cross-examination of the petitioners, respondent thought it necessary to amend his written statement by taking a plea that the first petitioner is not the owner but the second petitioner is the owner of the premises in question. The Additional Rent Controller by its order dated 9.1.1998 in case E-177/95 allowed the amendment on the ground that it did not substantially change the character of the defense. The aforesaid order was taken up in appeal before the Tribunal which was not entertained as not being maintainable.
5. From the very nature of the proceedings it appears that the issue regarding ownership revolved around petitioner no.1 being the owner of the premises in question for the purpose of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. It was irrelevant whether petitioner no.2 is the owner. The issue was whether petitioner no.1 is the owner or was deriving eviction on the basis of dependency. By allowing the amendment the Controller besides protracting the proceedings has allowed the respondent to put up a case which is contrary to his admitted stand.
6. The Supreme Court in Shiromani Gurudwara Committee's case (supra) has held that such contradictory and opposite stands cannot be allowed to be taken by way of amendments. Further as already discussed the issue concerning ownership would revolve around petitioner no.1 being the owner and entitled to eviction on the ground of his bona fide requirement. That being the situation the amendment besides being contradictory is unnecessary and ought not to have been allowed. Consequently, I set aside the order dated 9.1.1998 of the learned Additional Rent Controller as also the order dated 2.4.1999 the Additional Rent Control Tribunal in RCA No.25/1998 and allow CM(M) 270/1998. The same is disposed of accordingly.
7. Since it is an old case been pending for a long time it would be desirable that the Additional Rent Controller takes up the matter on an urgent basis and disposes of the same in accordance with law.