Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 36 (PNJ)

Dharampal Chhabra v. Mehar Chand

2001-01-09

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR

body2001
Judgment J.S.Khehar, J. 1. The respondent-landlord filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner-tenant claiming possession of SCF No. 54, Sector 23, Chandigarh, inter alia, on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. The Rent Controller framed issues on 2.11.1997 and on the first date, after the issues were framed, the respondent-landlord on 17.4.1998 examined all the four witnesses to be produced on their behalf. It would be necessary to clarify that on 17.4.1998 only examination-in-chief was conducted. The petitioner- tenant for one or the other reason delayed in cross-examine the witnesses produced by the respondent-landlord on 17.4.1998. Resultantly, evidence of the respondent-landlord continued to linger till 18.1.2001 thereafter the Rent Controller fixed 27.2.2001 for the petitioner-tenant to lead his evidence. Despite a number of opportunities having been granted to the tenants, he has not produced a single witness till date. 2. An application was filed on 20.8.2001 seeking amendment to the written statement. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 7.9.2001. A perusal of the facts narrated in the order of the Rent Controller dated 7.9.2001 reveals that the solitary ground for amendment of the written statement filed in response to the ejectment petition was to introduce the fact that there was an apprehension that the landlord (therein) was contemplating the sale of SCF No. 54, Sector 23, Chandigarh. The aforesaid application was considered by the Rent Controller as frivolous and only a delaying tactic adopted by the tenant. 3. The Order passed by the Rent Controller dated 7.9.2001, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-tenant on 20.8.2001 to allow amendment in the written statement in response to the ejectment petition, has been impugned by the petitioner-tenant. In the grounds filed by the petitioner-tenant, the facts narrated hereinabove were not disclosed. The fact that the respondent- landlord recorded the statements of all the four witnesses on 17.4.1998 and that the ejectment petition continued to be deferred from time to time till 18.1.2001 merely for the purpose of cross-examination at the hands of the petitioner-tenant is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the first opportunity to the petitioner-tenant to lead evidence was given on 20.7.2000 and that not a single witness has been recorded on behalf of the petitioner- tenant till date. 4. It is also not disputed that the first opportunity to the petitioner-tenant to lead evidence was given on 20.7.2000 and that not a single witness has been recorded on behalf of the petitioner- tenant till date. 4. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the Rent Controller in his order dated 7.9.2001 that the application for amendment was merely a tactic to delay the proceedings before the Rent Controller. Even otherwise, the facts sought to be introduced by the amendment are irrelevant to the merits of the claim pending before the Rent Controller. 5. For the reasons above, this petition is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 5000/-.