Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1277 (PNJ)

Davinder Pal v. Ritu Madan

2013-09-20

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2013
Rakesh Garg, J. 1. This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 7.8.2013 of the Rent Controller, Jagadhri, whereby his prayer for rejecting the amended petition filed on behalf of the respondent-landlady, has been dismissed. An ejectment petition was filed by the respondent-landlady against the petitioner on 19.5.2008. The petitioner-tenant filed written statement on 18.11.2008. 2. During the pendency of the petition, an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC for substitution was filed by the respondent which was allowed vide order dated 20.4.2013 in the following terms: "It is pertinent to mention here that present ejectment petition was filed by Parveen Dogra against the respondent on the ground that the shop in question is required by her for her personal use and occupation for running business of her daughter Ritu and her son-in-law Amit Madan because the son of petitioner namely Gagan Dogra is a Railway Employee and usually remain out of station and Amit Madan is running his business in a rented shop. She alleged that the petitioner is fully dependent on Amit Madan at present in her old age. Now by way of present application, the applicant Ritu daughter of petitioner Parveen Dogra wants to be impleaded herself as petitioner, being owner of the shop in dispute, on the basis of Release deed dated 22.11.2010 executed by petitioner Parveen Dogra and Gagan Dogra, son of petitioner. In the considered opinion of this court, if the application is allowed, it will not change the nature of the ejectment petition in any manner because initially also, the petitioner Parveen Dogra wants the ejectment of the respondent on the basis of her personal necessity and personal necessity of her daughter Ritu Madan (applicant) and Amit Madan (husband of applicant Ritu Madan). The averments taken by the respondent that the alleged Release Deed dated 22.11.2010 is a sham document and might have been executed by Parveen Dogra (petitioner) and Gagan Dogra (son of petitioner) to abuse the process of law and to create a ground for ejectment of the respondent on bonafide necessity, cannot be considered at this stage. During the pendency of the present petition, the original petitioner Parveen Dogra and Gagan Dogra another co-owner in the suit property executed the release deed in favour of applicant Ritu Madan and vide said release deed, she become the owner of the suit property. During the pendency of the present petition, the original petitioner Parveen Dogra and Gagan Dogra another co-owner in the suit property executed the release deed in favour of applicant Ritu Madan and vide said release deed, she become the owner of the suit property. No prejudice shall be caused to the respondent if the application is allowed. On the other hand, the applicant, being the owner/landlord of the suit property has a right to pursue the present application for ejectment against the respondent for her personal necessity. For the discussions foregoing, the application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC is hereby allowed. The applicant Ritu Madan is substituted as petitioner." 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the respondent-landlady filed an amended petition before the Rent Controller, Jagadhri which was taken on record. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application with a prayer to reject the aforesaid amended petition filed on behalf of the respondent-landlady submitting that vide order dated 20.4.2013, the respondent-landlady was allowed to be substituted as the petitioner in the eviction application and was not permitted to amend the ejectment application and thus, the amended petition could not have been allowed to be placed on record on behalf of the respondent and the same is Liable to be rejected. 4. The Rent Controller, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide impugned order dated 7.8.2013 rejected the prayer of the petitioner in the following terms: "After having heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the case file minutely and carefully, this court is of the view that application in hand deserves dismissal. Vide order dated 20.4.2013, the application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC filed by landlady was allowed and she was directed to file amended petition for 27.4.2013. However, the respondent has submitted that the landlady was only substitute as petitioner vide order dated 20.4.2013 and the amendment in the petition was not allowed. However, the submission made on behalf of the respondent is devoid of any merit because the landlady has filed a joint application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC for substituting her as petitioner and consequently, for necessary amendment in the ejectment petition. However, the submission made on behalf of the respondent is devoid of any merit because the landlady has filed a joint application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC for substituting her as petitioner and consequently, for necessary amendment in the ejectment petition. No doubt, it was not mentioned specifically in order dated 20.4.2013 that besides substituting her as petitioner, she was also allowed to amend the petition accordingly, but in the Zimni order dated 20.4.2013, the case was adjourned for 27.4.2012 for filing amended petition after allowing the application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. Moreover, when the petitioner Ritu Madan was substituted as petitioner being landlady, in place of Smt. Parveen Dogra, then she was also required to make necessary amendment in petition. A perusal of the amended petition filed on behalf of petitioner Ritu Madan would reveals that she has just elaborated the ground of personal necessity for herself as well as her husband and has not taken any new ground in the amended petition. There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down by learned counsel for applicant, but the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. For the discussion foregoing, the application in hand in devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed." 5. A perusal of the order dated 20.4.2013 would show that besides substituting the respondent as petitioner in the eviction application, she was further allowed to file amended eviction petition though this fact has not been mentioned by the tenant-petitioner. A conjoint reading of the order dated 20.4.2013 and the impugned order would show that the present ejectment petition was filed by respondent-landlady Parveen Dogra against the petitioner-tenant on the ground that shop in question was required by her for her personal use and occupation for running business of her daughter Ritu and her son-in-law Amit Madan, who was doing business in a rented shop. It was further alleged by Parveen Dogra that she was fully dependent on Amit Madan. Vide order dated 20.4.2013, applicant-Ritu daughter of Parveen Dogra has been allowed to be substituted being owner of the shop in dispute on the basis of release deed dated 22.11.2010. It was further alleged by Parveen Dogra that she was fully dependent on Amit Madan. Vide order dated 20.4.2013, applicant-Ritu daughter of Parveen Dogra has been allowed to be substituted being owner of the shop in dispute on the basis of release deed dated 22.11.2010. The Rent Controller was right in observing that by allowing the application, the nature of the ejectment petition will not be changed in any manner because initially also, Parveen Dogra (landlady) wanted the eviction of the petitioner on the basis of her necessity to settle her daughter Ritu Madan and her son-in-law Amit Madan. Even after substitution of Ritu Madan, as petitioner in the eviction application, the ground of eviction remains the same and no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner in any manner as the petitioner has enough opportunities to contest the aforesaid petition in accordance with law. Even otherwise, it may be noticed that after becoming owner of the suit property on the basis of release deed dated 22.11.2010, the applicant - Ritu Madan was entitled to file a fresh petition of ejectment against the petitioner on the ground of her personal necessity. 6. In view thereof, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed.