Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1285 (PNJ)

Rajinder Singh v. Jaipal Singh

2013-09-23

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2013
Rakesh Garg, J. 1. This is the landlord's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 22.10.2012, whereby his prayer for amendment of the rent petition has been rejected. According to the petitioner, an ejectment petition was filed against the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity of the petitioner-landlord for the demised premises which is a residential house. The petitioner came to know that respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction against him and in that suit he has made a statement that he is running a collection agency from the tenanted premises and thus has changed the user of the demised premises and keeping in view the aforesaid fact, petitioner moved an application for amendment of ejectment petition to incorporate the aforesaid factum of change of user of the suit property and further to raise plea against the respondent-tenant. It is the further case of the petitioner that vide impugned order dated 22.10.2012, the Rent Controller, Ludhiana has dismissed the application on wholly untenable grounds. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant has vehemently argued that the parties are already leading evidence and moreover there is no change of user of the demised premises. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. The relevant part of impugned order reads thus:- I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and have gone through the case file with minute care. The submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant regarding the use of tenanted premises by the respondent for the commercial purposes is without any merit. Mere installing the computers in house does not amount to change of use from residential to commercial one. Moreover, the applicant has nowhere mentioned that the respondent is not staying or residing in the said premises. All the dispute is a matter of evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that at the most the respondent can be confronted with regard to his statement as per the provision u/s. 148 Evidence act, when he steps into the witness box. 5. In spite of the fact that the Rent Controller noticed that the respondent-tenant has installed computers in the demised premises, yet the prayer has been rejected. 5. In spite of the fact that the Rent Controller noticed that the respondent-tenant has installed computers in the demised premises, yet the prayer has been rejected. Not only this, it is landlord's petition and therefore, it cannot be said that the proceedings are being delayed by him. Moreover, the proceedings are at the initial stage, as petitioner-landlord is leading the evidence. 6. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the case, this petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the amendment sought by the petitioner is allowed. Let the amended petition be taken on record and thereafter the Rent Controller may proceed in accordance with law by affording an opportunity to the respondent to file reply to the amended petition and frame fresh issues or additional issue, if any. Parties to appear before the Rent Controller on the date already fixed.