Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1383 (PNJ)

Wekanti Leong v. Jatinder Kaur

2014-10-01

BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON

body2014
JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.:- The petitioner-tenants have challenged order dated 21.3.2013 (Annexure P-5) vide which the Rent Controller has dismissed their application for amendment of the written statement on the plea that the amendment sought for is not necessary for adjudication of the matter in controversy as pleading of the petitioners already existing, cover the stand now sought to be introduced by amendment of the written statement. 2. Claim of the petitioner-tenants in this revision petition is that the ground inter-alia of personal necessity put-forth by the landlord is not only non-existent but has been introduced merely to harass the petitioners. It is claimed that by way of amendment, the petitioner-tenants want to elaborate this plea going ahead of the averments made in the written statement (Annexure P-2), already on record. 3. Counsel for the respondent-landlady has urged that when the plea that ground, inter-alia, of personal necessity has not been taken bonafide by the landlady, is already there in the written statement of the petitioner-tenants, what evidence is required to be produced to prove the same, is not required to be brought in the written statement. Claiming the revision petition to be devoid of merit, its dismissal has been sought. 4. Hearing has been provided. 5. Eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant, on the ground of non payment of rent and personal necessity, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, is pending adjudication before the Rent Controller, Ludhiana since 20.7.2010. On the ground of personal necessity, the landlady has claimed that she requires the premises for use and occupation of herself as also for her husband who retired on 30.7.2009 as Chief Engineer in the Punjab State Electricity Board and is now without any work, though he is a highly qualified person. It is claimed that they want to start business of electrical/electronics goods in the premises in dispute. On her part, the landlady has averred that she herself is educated and would run the business along with her husband. 6. During the course of leading of evidence by the landlady, in cross examination of her husband Tejinder Singh Deol PW2, the petitionertenants could extract that he, as also his wife Smt. Jatinder Kaur (respondent herein who is landlady in the eviction petition) are Green Card holders since 2003. 6. During the course of leading of evidence by the landlady, in cross examination of her husband Tejinder Singh Deol PW2, the petitionertenants could extract that he, as also his wife Smt. Jatinder Kaur (respondent herein who is landlady in the eviction petition) are Green Card holders since 2003. By way of amendment in the written statement, elaborating her plea, the petitioner-tenants want to add plea that there is concealment of facts by the landlady as well, in addition to elaborating and expanding the domain, sweep and horizon of her stand that ground of personal necessity is not bona-fide and rather is a camouflage and a contrivance. 7. So far as the stage of proceedings in the rent petition is concerned, evidence of the petitioner-tenant has yet not started. Even otherwise, if amendment sought for is necessary, stage of the proceedings ipso facto would become inconsequential. 8. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant citing Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro Bank N.V. and others, [2007(3) Law Herald (SC) 2210] : 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 585 has urged that amendment of written statement to add additional ground of defence is permissible and delay is no ground for refusal of such a prayer. Citing Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Others v. K.K. Modi & Others, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 577, it is contended that rule of amendment is essentially rule of justice, equity and good conscience and such power is to be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties before the court. Support has also been sought from Baldev Singh v. Kanwal Pal Singh and others, 2014(1) ICC 816. Counsel for the petitioner further citing Usha Balashaheb Swami & Others v. Kiran Appaso Swami & Others, [2007(2) Law Herald (SC) 1281] : 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 830, has urged that amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage if the same is necessary for determining the matter in controversy. 9. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has urged that when plea is already there in the written statement and amendment is merely to delay and dilate the matter, it is not to be allowed. Support has been sought from Chamder Mohan v. Brij Mohan, 2000(1) RCR (Rent) 79 and Shri Remal Dass Chhabra v. Shri Khushi Ram Bareja and others, 1990(1) RCR (Rent) 25. 10. Support has been sought from Chamder Mohan v. Brij Mohan, 2000(1) RCR (Rent) 79 and Shri Remal Dass Chhabra v. Shri Khushi Ram Bareja and others, 1990(1) RCR (Rent) 25. 10. Undoubtedly, plea, that ground of personal necessity put-forth by the landlady is not bona fide, is already there in the written statement, but at the same time, there are many more inter-related aspects, viz., concealment of facts; landlady and her husband are in fact residing in the USA, they being Green Card holders; in fact, they have no intention to start business in the premises as they are well settled with their wards in the States, etc. which, unless pleaded in the written statement, would create legal impediment for the petitioner-tenants to lead their evidence to rebut the claim of personal necessity taken by the landlady against them. Even if in cross examination effected on Tejinder Singh Deol, PW2 (who is husband of the landlady), some aspects of the matter have emerged having bearing on the ground of personal necessity, that is not end of the road for the petitioner-tenant. 11. Even when entire spectrum of controversy between the parties is visualized, unless pleadings of the petitioner-tenants are wholesome and elaborate, evidence would not be permissible for the petitioner-tenants to be brought far and beyond the scope of their plea in the written statement. Though amendment sought for is extension of the plea that personal necessity of the landlady is not genuine but the scope and extension of such plea by way of amendment is quite large as it takes into its fold many related aspects which would require independent handling and distinct adjudication after evidence is produced by the petitioner-tenants with liberty of rebuttal evidence to be granted to the landlords. To deny such amendment to the petitioner-tenant would in fact amount to miscarriage of justice. In short, the amendment sought for by the petitioner-tenants is necessary for proper, competent and effective adjudication of the matter in controversy. 12. Sequelly, reversing the impugned order, allowing the revision petition, amendment sought for by the petitioner-tenant vide application dated 4.2.2014 (Annexure P-4), is allowed. After filing amended written statement, evidence would be concluded by the petitioner-tenants within three months and thereafter the petition would be decided within another three months giving opportunity to the landlady for adducing rebuttal evidence, if any. 13. After filing amended written statement, evidence would be concluded by the petitioner-tenants within three months and thereafter the petition would be decided within another three months giving opportunity to the landlady for adducing rebuttal evidence, if any. 13. Parties shall appear before the Rent Controller on 29.10.2014. ---------0.B.S.0------------ --------------------