Belated amendment and denial of landlord's title fail where written admissions establish the tenancy relationship.

Amendment of pleadings and reception of additional evidence at the appellate stage may be allowed to resolve the real controversy, but not where a party knew of the document, failed to plead it in the written statement, and sought to introduce a new defence only after delay. Admissions in the written statement that the respondents were landlords and that rent had been paid to them estopped the tenant from denying the landlord-tenant relationship or disputing title under the rent statute. The appellate challenge on both procedural and substantive grounds therefore failed, and the eviction proceedings remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate court could permit amendment of the written statement and reception of additional evidence at the appellate stage on the facts of the case; (ii) Whether the tenant could deny the respondents' title and resist eviction in view of the admissions made in the written statement and the plea of lack of landlord status under the rent statute.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate court could permit amendment of the written statement and reception of additional evidence at the appellate stage on the facts of the case

Analysis: The power to allow amendment of pleadings is wide and is ordinarily exercised liberally where it helps determine the real controversy. The power to receive additional evidence at the appellate stage is also available where justice so requires. However, those principles do not assist a party who was aware of the document in question, omitted to plead it in the written statement, and sought to raise it only at the appellate stage after the trial court had already declined similar discovery relief. On the facts, the attempt was seen as an effort to introduce a new defence belatedly after substantial delay.

Conclusion: The refusal to permit amendment and additional evidence was justified and the challenge to that refusal failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the tenant could deny the respondents' title and resist eviction in view of the admissions made in the written statement and the plea of lack of landlord status under the rent statute

Analysis: The written statement contained admissions that the respondents were the landlords and that rent had been paid to them. In the presence of such admissions, the tenant was estopped from disputing the landlord-tenant relationship. The statutory objection based on the definition of landlord and the plea that the eviction claim was not maintainable for want of ownership could not prevail against those admissions.

Conclusion: The objection to the eviction claim was rejected and the respondents' position was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's order failed on both procedural and substantive grounds, and the eviction proceedings were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A party who has admitted the landlord-tenant relationship and payment of rent cannot, at the appellate stage, be permitted to displace that admission by a belated amendment or additional evidence, and is estopped from denying the landlord's title.

---