Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 749 (HP)

Eih Associated Hotels Ltd v. Neema Bakshi

2013-08-19

A.M.KHANWILKAR

body2013
JUDGEMENT 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. AS short question is involved, revision application is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. This revision application takes exception to the order dated 3. 1.2012, PASSED by the Rent Controller (7), Shimla in CMA No. 1-6 of 2012 in Rent Petition No. 23/2 of 2005 (though in the cause title in certified copy, it is mentioned as Rent Controller (2), Shimla). 4. By this order, the application for amendment preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected. By way of amendment, the petitioner wanted the memo of parties to be altered to incorporate the fact that the rent application filed for and on behalf of the Company was to be pursued through Mr. Srikant Peri, the Attorney and General Manager of the Company. In addition to this amendment, the petitioner sought further amendment in paragraph 19 of the original petition. As regards that amendment, the trial court opined that the factual position asserted in the amended portion, if accepted, would be contrary to the original pleadings contained in the rent application. As regards that reasoning is concerned, that is not challenged in the present application and it is stated that the petitioner would be more than content if the application was allowed only to the extent of allowing the petitioner to correct the cause title in terms of paragraph 5(i) of the . amendment application, which reads thus: " 5. That the amendments now sought to the amended petition are formal in nature and are as under:- (i) That the name of the Petitioner in the Memo of Parties is required to be amended to read as follows: EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. With its Registered Office at 1/24, GST Road, Meenabakkam, Chennai-600027. Through Mr. Srikant Peri, its Attorney and General Manager The Oberio Cecil, Cecil Hotel Estate, A unit of EIH Associated Hotels Ltd., Chaura Maidan, Shimla-171004." 4. AS regards this amendment, the Rent Controller in paragraph 6 has observed that the petitioner had applied for amendment, which was already granted on 14.8.2007. Further, if the petitioner was allowed to pursue the rent application through Srikant Peri, it would result in rendering issue No. 4 as redundant. As regards that observation of the Rent Controller, I have no hesitation in taking the view that it is completely inappropriate. Further, if the petitioner was allowed to pursue the rent application through Srikant Peri, it would result in rendering issue No. 4 as redundant. As regards that observation of the Rent Controller, I have no hesitation in taking the view that it is completely inappropriate. The fact that the petitioner-Company decided to change its authorized officer to pursue the rent application, which it is entitled to do during the pendency of the proceedings, does not mean that issue No. 4 as framed on 5.5.2006, would be rendered nugatory. That issue, nevertheless, will have to be tried at the appropriate stage and if answered against the petitioner, the consequential order will have to be passed on that basis. In other words, if the respondent succeeds in the objection that Rajeev Chauhan had no locus to present the original application, the consequence of that finding ought to follow irrespective of amendment allowed in terms of this order, as prayed in paragraph 5(i) of the amendment application. Inasmuch as, merely by changing the authorized officer at a subsequent point of time during the pendency of the rent proceedings, the original infirmity, if it is incurable, cannot be permitted to be circumvented by such amendment. Thus understood, issue No. 4 will have to be considered by the Rent Controller on its own merits, irrespective of allowing the amendment, as sought in terms of . paragraph 5(i). This revision application succeeds in part to the limited extent as mentioned earlier. In other words, the amendment application is partly allowed to the extent of allowing the petitioner to carry out the amendment in terms of proposed amendment in paragraph 5(i) of the amendment application. Since the original proceedings pertain to year 2005, it is but appropriate that the same is decided expeditiously. 5. THE Revision application is disposed of accordingly.