“ 21 . Such being the settled law, we must hold that in the case of amendment of a written statement, the Courts are more liberal in allowing an amendment than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter case (see B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai, 2000 (1) SCC 712 : 2001 (1) ARC 5, and Baldev Singh & Ors. V. Manohar Singh, 2006 (6) SCC 498: 2006 (3) Supp. ARC 253. Even the decision relied on by the plaintiff in Modi Spinning (supra) clearly recognise that inconsistent pleas can be taken in the pleadings. In this context, we may also refer to the decision of this Court in Basavan Jaggu Dhobi v. Sukhanandan Ramdas Chaudhary (Dead), 1955 Supp. (3) SCC 179 : 1996 SCFBRC 201. In that case, the defendant had initially taken up the stand that he was a joint tenant along with others. Subsequently, he submitted that he was a licensee for monetary consideration who was deemed to be a tenant as per the provisions of Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rents Control Act, 1947. This Court, held that the defendant could have validly taken such an
