SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 18.1.2012 of Additional Rent Controller Tribunal whereby the appeal against the order dated 21.5.2010 of Additional Rent Controller allowing application U/O 6 rule 17 CPC of the respondent/landlord, was dismissed.

(2.) IN the petition filed by the respondent U/s 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner was granted leave to defend by the ARC vide order dated 24.07.2003. The respondent filed application U/O 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in paras 8, 13 and 20 of the petition. The brief reasons for seeking amendment as set up in the application and as noted by the ARC in his order were that the description of the property and the assessment of house tax had not been correctly given in the petition and the respondent wanted to amend the petition by adding "Two verandas in front of those rooms" before the word "kitchen" in para 8 of the petition and by adding the words "situated on the ground floor shown as RED in the site plan attached" after the words "open space" and by adding the line "with facility of common use of court yard, passage and stairs on the ground floor and one latrine on the first floor as shown "YELLOW" in the site plan attached" in the same para i.e. para 8. The petitioner wants to amend para 13 by stating that the tenanted premises are not separately assessed for the purposes of house tax, rather the entire property is assessed to house tax purposes as per MCD records and now house tax is fixed as per unit area system from the assessment year 2003-2004 onwards. He wants to carry on the consequential amendment in para 20 i.e. prayer clause of the petition also.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the amendments which are sought are nothing but explanatory and clarificatory of the pleadings of the plaint and no new fact was sought to be added or incorporated. Learned counsel relies upon the case of Ram Chandar Vs. Sevak Ram 2007 (6) SCC.