Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1877 (PNJ)

Sohan Lal v. Ravinderjit Kaur

2012-12-20

JASWANT SINGH

body2012
Jaswant Singh, J.;— Petitioner(tenant) is in revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order dated 12.12.2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby his application for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that through his application for amendment of written statement, the present petitioner had stated that the respondents(landlords) had concealed material facts from the court, by not stating that they are owner in possession of certain other commercial properties as well. It was averred in the application that the respondents did not disclose regarding them being owner of a big commercial property in Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana which was owned by them. Thus, it was stated by petitioner(tenant) that by not disclosing the fact that the property located in Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana is a commercial establishment and lying vacant, the respondents(landlords) have disentitled themselves from seeking relief of ejectment against the petitioner. Finally, it was stated in the application that this fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner during the cross examination of respondent no.2(landlord) Kulbir Singh. Hence, it was prayed that he be allowed to amend his written statement and take all the pleas mentioned above, as the same are subsequent events. Upon notice, respondents(landlords) filed reply and it was stated that the application is misconceived and same has been filed only with a purpose to delay the disposal of the case, as the petition has been filed on the ground of personal necessity. It was stated in the reply that almost 20 dates have been taken by the petitioner(tenant) for cross examination of the respondents(landlords) and still same has not been completed by them despite several opportunities. It was also mentioned in the reply that this High Court, had vide its order dated 4.4.2011, ordered the disposal of the case by 31.12.2012 and instead of complying with the said directions, the petitioner(tenant) is devicing innovative methods to delay the proceedings. Thus, it was pleaded that the application has been filed at a very belated stage and the same cannot be allowed. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, learned Rent Controller, vide its impugned order dated 12.12.2012 dismissed the said application of the petitioner(tenant) and hence the present petition has been preferred. 4. Thus, it was pleaded that the application has been filed at a very belated stage and the same cannot be allowed. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, learned Rent Controller, vide its impugned order dated 12.12.2012 dismissed the said application of the petitioner(tenant) and hence the present petition has been preferred. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance. Learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) has vehemently argued that the amendment sought to be incorporated would not prejudice the respondents as it is only a statement of fact, which surfaced during the cross examination and deeply goes to the root of the matter. It was also argued that the concept of subsequent events being incorporated in the written statement by allowing the amendment has been widely accepted by the courts and the said position is somewhat settled. Thus, it was stated that the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, as subsequent events can be allowed to be taken into consideration at any stage. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the opinion that the present revision petition is devoid of any merit and same deserves to be dismissed. It is not in dispute that the respondents(landlords) had disclosed about there being a property in Gurdev Nagar, in para 2 of their amended ejectment application. It is also not in dispute that the crux of the amendment that is being sought by the petitioner(tenant) is that the respondents(landlords) do not intend to occupy the property and therefore,their necessity is not bona fide. This Court is of the opinion that the nature of amendment that is being sought by the petitioner(tenant)is of such nature that the same can be brought forward even at the time of leading his own evidence, especially when the petitioner has taken a specific objection in para no.4 of the preliminary objections of the amended written statement that material facts have been concealed by the respondents. Thus, any fact that the tenant intends to bring on record can brought by him during his evidence or even in the cross examination of the witnesses of the respondents(landlords). Thus, any fact that the tenant intends to bring on record can brought by him during his evidence or even in the cross examination of the witnesses of the respondents(landlords). It is although true that if there are subsequent events, same can be taken into consideration and amendment can be allowed. However, the said rule is not universally applicable and the courts have to tread cautiously before allowing such amendments and see as to whether the same goes to the root of the matter or not or whether they are in fact subsequent events or not. In the considered opinion of this Court, the facts that tenant intends to plead are neither subsequent events nor are of such nature that go to the root of the matter so as to permit amendment at this belated stage, when evidence is already started and the matter is fixed for evidence of the landlord. 6. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, same is hereby dismissed.