OLYMPIC INDUSTRIES versus MULLA HUSSAINY BHAI MULLA AKBERALLY & ORS.

OLYMPIC INDUSTRIES versus MULLA HUSSAINY BHAI MULLA AKBERALLY & ORS.

The High Court was not justified in rejecting permission for the additional counter statement, as mere delay and introduction of new or inconsistent plea are not by themselves grounds for refusal if no grave prejudice is caused. The concurrent orders of Rent Control Authorities allowing the additional statement were proper, and the High Court could interfere only in cases of perversity or arbitrariness, which was not established.

Parties
Appellant: Olympic Industries; Respondents: Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Additional Written Statement, Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court, Fixation of Fair Rent
Civil Procedure Tenancy Law Amendment of Pleadings Additional Written Statement Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court Fixation of Fair Rent

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Olympic Industries

Appellant

Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay alone is sufficient ground to reject permission to file additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
  2. 2 Whether a new or inconsistent plea in additional written statement can be permitted
  3. 3 Scope of High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court was not justified in rejecting permission for the additional counter statement, as mere delay and introduction of new or inconsistent plea are not by themselves grounds for refusal if no grave prejudice is caused. The concurrent orders of Rent Control Authorities allowing the additional statement were proper, and the High Court could interfere only in cases of perversity or arbitrariness, which was not established.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Impugned order of the High Court is set aside.
  • Orders of Rent Control Authority and Appellate Authority are restored.