Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs Smt. Nanda Guha on 3 August, 2022
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010121882022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/131/2022
SMT DURBA CHOUDHURY AND ANR
W/O LATE PLABAN SHANKAR CHOUDHURY, P.R.O NARSHING ROAD,
AMBICAPATTY SILCHAR-4, P.O. AND P.S.-SILCHAR, DIST-CACHAR, ASSAM,
P/R/A C/O BISWAS NIBAS FLAT NO. A/8, CHURCH ROAD, AMBICAPATTY
SILCHAR-4, P.O. AND P.S.-SILCHAR, DIST-CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788004
2: SMT ANKITA CHOUDHURY
D/O LATE PLABAN SHANKAR CHOUDHURY
P.R.O NARSHING ROAD
AMBICAPATTY SILCHAR-4
P.O. AND P.S.-SILCHAR
DIST-CACHAR
ASSAM
P/R/A C/O BISWAS NIBAS FLAT NO. A/8
CHURCH ROAD
AMBICAPATTY SILCHAR-4
P.O. AND P.S.-SILCHAR
DIST-CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-78800
VERSUS
SMT. NANDA GUHA
W/O SRI ASHISH RANJAN GUHA, P/R/O NAGNAHA LANE, SILCHAR-1, P.O.
AND P.S.-SILCHAR, DIST-CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T ROY
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D CHAKRABARTY
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 03.08.2022
Heard Mr. T. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioners and Mr. D. Chakrabarty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Respondent.
This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the
order dated 09.03.2022 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.95/2020 arising out of Title
Suit No.109/2018 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff/the Respondent
herein under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order I Rule 10(2) and Section 151
was allowed.
Mr. T. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners
submits that this is a landlord-tenant dispute and the allegations which have
been sought to be brought in is that one lady namely Paromita Das (Sarkar) has
been sublet the tenanted premises which on the face of it is absolutely false as
she is only an employee of the Petitioners. He further submitted that the
Opposite Party has not placed on record any documents to the effect that the
Petitioners herein have sublet the tenancy to the said Paromita Das (Sarkar).
On the other hand Mr. D. Chakrabarty, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondent submits that a perusal of the impugned order showed
that it is a very well reasoned order and the question as to whether there has
been a sublet or not is a question going into the merits of the case which as per
the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rajesh Kumar
Agarwal Vs. K. K. Modi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385 cannot be looked into at the
stage of deciding an application under Order VI Rule 17. The only jurisdiction of
Page No.# 3/3
the Court below which have been rightly exercised in the instant case is to look
into as to whether the application so filed is necessary for deciding the real
question in controversy.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also perusal of the
impugned order dated 09.03.2022, this Court is of the opinion that the Court
below had rightly allowed the amendment by taking into account that these are
subsequent events after the filing of the suit and which is necessary for
determining the real question in controversy to the effect that as to whether the
defendant i.e. the tenant is liable to be evicted on the grounds mentioned in the
plaint.
In view of the above, this Court is not of the opinion that this is a fit case
for interference for which the instant petition stands dismissed.
It is made clear that upon filing of the amended plaint, the Petitioners
herein who was the Defendants shall be entitled to file additional written
statement taking all such pleas of defence as is available as per law, if not
already filed by the Defendants.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
