Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1342 (PNJ)

Amarjit Singh v. Sandla Sood

2013-10-04

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2013
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.1888-CII of 2013 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.560 of 2013(O&M) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 8.1.2013 of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement has been rejected. The respondent-landlady filed a petition on 19.12.2009 under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent and that the demised premises are required by the respondent-landlady for her use and occupation. To contest the aforesaid ejectment petition, the petitioner-tenant filed written statement denying the relationship of tenant and landlady between him and the respondent. The averments as made in the written statement reads thus: Para 5 of the Preliminary Objection:- “That the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition, as no relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the petitioner and respondent. The property in question was taken on lease by the respondent from Sh.Karnail Singh Arre Wale, R/o 816, Partap Chowk, Ludhiana around 38 years back and the respondent was regularly making the payment of the rent and the same was accepted by said Karnail Singh but suddenly in the month of February, 2003, he stopped receiving the rent and the respondent through his counsel Sh.Jaspal Singh Dara issued a legal notice dated 03.11.2003 and called upon said Karnail Singh to receive the rent but the said Karnail Singh had duly received the said notice but had not replied the same. Copy of the notice is attached herewith.” Para 2 of written statement on Merits:- That para No.2 of the petition is matter of record and the onus to prove the sale deed is strictly upon the petitioner. No relationship of the landlord and tenant exists between the respondent and petitioner.” Since the relationship of landlady and tenant was denied, the Rent Controller proceeded to frame the issues as assessment of provisional rent was not required. After framing of the issues on 14.11.2011, the respondent-landlady led her evidence and proved the sale deed executed by Karnail Singh, the original owner, in her favour. The copy of the sale deed was also annexed by the respondent-landlady along with the plaint. After framing of the issues on 14.11.2011, the respondent-landlady led her evidence and proved the sale deed executed by Karnail Singh, the original owner, in her favour. The copy of the sale deed was also annexed by the respondent-landlady along with the plaint. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application on 28.11.2011 making a prayer for assessing the provisional rent and allowing him to tender the same. However, the said prayer of the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the instant application in September, 2012 seeking amendment of the written statement that the petitioner wants to delete para No.5 of the preliminary objections as noticed above and further wants to delete the concluding lines of para No.2 of the written statement on merit i.e. “No relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the respondent and the petitioner”. Thus, by seeking the aforesaid amendment, the petitioner now wants to admit the relationship of tenant and landlady between the parties. In the application, the petitioner has taken a stand that now the respondent has placed on record the sale deed pertaining to the property which was in his possession being a tenant and since by operation of law, the respondent has become the landlady of the petitioner and earlier also he had only asserted that neither he has knowledge regarding the transfer of ownership of the property nor he was informed regarding such transaction between the landlady and the previous owner Karnail Singh and moreover, the evidence is yet to be completed by the parties, in the interest of justice amendment should be allowed. In pith and substance, by moving the application for amendment, the petitioner-tenant wants to negate the benefit accrued to the respondent-landlady on the basis of the earlier defence taken by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was well within his rights to withdraw the admission. To support his case, he has relied upon a judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai & ors. Versus Padmalatha & anr., 2009(1) RCR(Civil)763 and Sushil Kumar Jain versus Manoj Kumar & anr. 2009(8) JT 392 . It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was well within his rights to withdraw the admission. To support his case, he has relied upon a judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai & ors. Versus Padmalatha & anr., 2009(1) RCR(Civil)763 and Sushil Kumar Jain versus Manoj Kumar & anr. 2009(8) JT 392 . On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Hukma Devi versus Bhagwan Dass 2003(1) RCR (Rent) 533 and of the Apex Court in Heeralal versus Kalyan Mal 1998(1) RCR (Civil) 140 (S.C) to contend that once a tenant has denied his liability to pay the rent or the relationship of landlord and tenant, in such a case, there cannot be any obligation on the part of the Rent Controller to make an assessment about the arrears of rent and once a right has accrued to the plaintiff, the same cannot be taken away by the defendant by taking inconsistent stand and withdrawing such admission. At this stage, it may be noticed that there is no dispute with the ratio of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Jain's case (supra) to the effect that an admission made by the party may be withdrawn or may be explained by the party by way of amendment and that party may amend pleadings even after commencement of the trial and framing of the issues. However, the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the instant case, as in the instant case, on the basis of the pleadings of the petitioner, a right has accrued to the landlady to evict the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent after proving the relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties and the same cannot be taken away by allowing the petitioner to amend the pleadings. It may further be noticed that even the conduct of the petitioner in the instant case is not upto the mark as the respondent-landlady has taken a specific stand in the ejectment petition that she had purchased the demised premises from one Karnail Singh, who admittedly was the landlord of the petitioner. It may further be noticed that even the conduct of the petitioner in the instant case is not upto the mark as the respondent-landlady has taken a specific stand in the ejectment petition that she had purchased the demised premises from one Karnail Singh, who admittedly was the landlord of the petitioner. Not only this, the respondent-landlady has also annexed a copy of the sale deed in her favour from said Karnail Singh along with plaint. A perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner would further show that he has not disputed the sale deed of the demised premises in favour of the respondent-landlady. Moreover, he himself made an application for assessment of the provisional rent and further allowing him to pay the same, after framing of the issues which was rejected and thereafter, he moved the present application for amendment in the written statement after a lapse of about two years' period from the date of his filing the written statement and also after the respondent-landlady has already proved the execution of the sale deed of the demised premises in her favour. Thus, no error can be framed in the impugned order and in these circumstances, this Court finds no merit in this petition. Dismissed.