VINOD LUTHRA Vs. SARITA HANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the impugned order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 02.1.2014 by which the Additional Rent Controller has allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the respondent/landlord for amendment of the bonafide necessity petition. By the amendment, the respondent/landlord sought to substitute the expression "intends to be based at Delhi" instead of the expression "based at Delhi" which was found in the eviction petition as regards the business of the daughter Shweta and for whose requirement the bonafide necessity petition was filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

(2.) The application of amendment which has been allowed was filed at the stage of pleadings i.e evidence in the case had yet not been commenced.

(3.) The case as regards the amendment prayed has a sight history in that the leave to defend was denied by the Additional Rent Controller by the order dated 23.4.2012 but was granted by this Court in a Rent Control Revision Petition no.413/2012 by observing that the respondent/landlord was not taking up a clear-cut stand of the daughter Ms. Shweta as to whether she is based at Phagwara or is based at Delhi. It is because of this inconsistency as found that the leave to defend was granted taking into account the stand of the petitioner/tenant that the daughter Shweta was in fact working in Phagwara and not in Delhi.