Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 724 (PNJ)

Ashok Kumar Jog v. Vidya Rani

2012-05-16

K.C.PURI

body2012
K.C.Puri. J.;— Challenge in this revision petition is the order dated 24.4.2012 passed by Ms. Shalini Singh Nagpal, learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide which the appeal preferred by the landlord for amendment of the rent petition was accepted after setting aside the order dated 2.1.2012 passed by the Rent Controller dismissing the application for amendment of the petition. 2. Briefly stated that Nand Lal filed eviction petition against tenant-Ashok Kumar Jog. The landlord Nand Lal now respondent wanted to add paragraph 6-A in the petition, the detailed of which is given as under :- “6A. That it will not out of place to mention here that the petitioner applied for allotment of LIG H.No.869, Sector 40-A Chandigarh giving address of his brother-inlaw Arjan Dass (now deceased) i.e. H.No.534 Sector 11 Chandigarh, however, the petitioner never resided in H.No.534 Sector 11 Chandigarh, but as and when the petitioner came to Chandigarh the petitioner stayed with his brother-in-law Shri Arjan Dass (Now deceased). Thereupon said House No.869, LIG Sector 40-A, Chandigarh was allotted to the petitioner by the Chandigarh Housing Board. But the petitioner sold the said house to Smt. Amarjit Kaur w/o Sh. Labh Singh on the basis of agreement to sell dated 30.6.1996, General Power of Attorney and Will. Ultimately the said house has been sold by the purchaser Smt.Amarjit Kaur to Anil Prabha Madhok to whom the said house has been transferred by the Chandigarh Housing Board. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased H.No.2786 Sector 37-C, Chandigarh on the basis of General Power of Attorney in the year 1995 itself and the same was again sold to Smt.Charanjit Kaur vide Sub General Power of Attorney dated 13.10.1996 and agreement to sell and affidavit was also executed by the petitioner in favour of Smt.Charanjit Kaur. Thus the petitioner remained in possession of the said H.No.869, LIG Sector 40-A, Chandigarh till 30.06.1995 and vacated the same on the sale of the said house to the said Smt. Amarjit Kaur. Thereafter, the petitioner started residing in H.No.2786, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh for a very short period and ultimately the petitioner vacated the said house on its sale to Smt. Charanjit Kaur. After the sale of said house No.2786 Sector 37-C, Chandigarh the petitioner purchased the present House No.679 Sector 40-A, Chandigarh where the petitioner and his family is residing since October, 1996 continuously. After the sale of said house No.2786 Sector 37-C, Chandigarh the petitioner purchased the present House No.679 Sector 40-A, Chandigarh where the petitioner and his family is residing since October, 1996 continuously. Thus, because of the sale of the said houses, the petitioner vacated the same for a sufficient cause after enforcement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.” 3. It is pleaded that the said fact regarding occupation of the aforesaid house could not be inadvertently given in the plaint. Similar prayer was made to add in paragraph No.7-A in the petition. 4. The said application was resisted by the tenant by filing written reply. It is pleaded that proceedings in the eviction petition has already commenced and as such application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – the CPC) is not maintainable. Shri S.K.Sharma, Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide order dated 2.1.2012 dismissed the application. Nand Lal landlord filed appeal against the said order and the learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.4.2012 allowed the necessary amendment. 5. The tenant now petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.4.2012 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh in the present revision petition. 6. Shri Amit Rawal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Divanshu Jain, Advocate has submitted that eviction petition has been filed on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. The landlord has another property which detailed in the paragraph sought to be amended. After the commencement of the proceedings, the eviction petition cannot be ordered to be amended. 7. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not fine any force in that submission. 8. According to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC amendment can be made at any stage of the trial in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the same is essential for just decision of the case. No doubt the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the eviction petition but its principles are applicable. The landlord does not want to change the nature of the pleading. The case of the landlord from the very beginning is that he has no other building except the building in question. The amendment sought is only in the explanatory in nature that previously he owns some property but the same have been sold away as detailed in the amended petition. The case of the landlord from the very beginning is that he has no other building except the building in question. The amendment sought is only in the explanatory in nature that previously he owns some property but the same have been sold away as detailed in the amended petition. The veracity of the amended pleadings is yet to be adjudged during the course of trial. So, the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the petition in any manner and is explanatory in nature. 9. So far as the authority Arjun Chand vs. Smt.Shama Joshi reported in 2011 (2) Rent Law Reporter page 55 is concerned that authority is distinguishable. In that case the landlady requires the premises for her son to start business of Chemist. Son of the landlady in crossexamination has stated that he is only an art graduate and as such he was not able to open the Chemist shop. Thereafter the landlady sought amendment in the petition that his son is to start business of Ayurvedic medicines. 10. Authority Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Anr. Versus Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors reported in 2007(1) R.C.R.(Civil) page 481 is also distinguishable to the facts of the present case. In that case, a party has lost the litigation upto to Supreme Court and started second round of litigation. In the second round of litigation, amendment in the written statement was sought and under those circumstances the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in such circumstances, amendment in pleadings should not be allowed when the trial has commenced. Provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC envisage that amendment of pleading should not be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not raise the matter before the commencement of the trial. In the first part of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, it has been stated that Court may allow the amendment at any stage of the trial, if the same is necessary for the determination of real question in controversy between the parties. The real controversy in the present lis is regarding personal necessity and whether the landlord owned any other alternative property. So to resolve that controversy, the amendment, which is explanatory in nature, has rightly been allowed by the Appellate Court. 11. The real controversy in the present lis is regarding personal necessity and whether the landlord owned any other alternative property. So to resolve that controversy, the amendment, which is explanatory in nature, has rightly been allowed by the Appellate Court. 11. In authority Banke Ram versus Shrimati Sarasvati Devi reported in 1977(1) RCR (Rent) 595, the Full Bench of this Court held that landlord has to plead the necessary ingredient as envisaged in section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The question of amendment was not in dispute in that case. The Single Bench of this Court in authority Shankar Lal versus Madan Lal & others reported as 2011 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) page 139 has again reiterated the necessary ingredient of personal necessity are required to be pleaded. It is not disputed that the necessary ingredients have already been pleaded but the fact regarding earlier ownership of the property is required to be pleaded. 12. So, in view of the above discussion, I do not see any ground for interference in the impugned order dated 24.4.2012. 13. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. 14. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.