ABNASH KAUR Vs. AVINASH NAYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While a petition by the landlord (Respondent No. 1) for the eviction of the tenant (petitioner) on the ground of non-payment of rent under clause (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) was pending for some time, the landlord went to inspect the premises and is said to have found that the premises had been substantially damaged by the tenant.

(2.) He, therefore, applied for an amendment of the petition for eviction with a view to add another ground for the eviction of the tenant under clause (j) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14" namely, that the tenant has caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises. The Rent controller allowed the petition to be amended apparently because only an additional ground to claim the same relief of eviction was being added. The tenant (petitioner) has filed this petition under Article 227 of the constitution alleging that the said order of the controller allowing the amendment was without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of order VI rule 17 of the civil procedure Code and is liable to be quashed.

(3.) In support of her contention, the petitioner mainly relied upon an unreported decision of Mehar Singh and S.B.Capoor.JJ. sitting as the circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi holding that in a petition for eviction filed on existing grounds an additional ground arising subsequent to the filing of the petition cannot be added by way or amendment. Prakash Narain, J., before whom the petition came for hearing was of the view that the Division Bench decision perhaps required reconsideration and, therefore, referred the same question which had been decided by the Division Bench for the consideration of a Full Bench, namely: -