PRITAM SINGH Vs. SURAJ PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 195S (hereinafter called the Act) from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 24th July, 1967 dismissing the appellant's appeal and affirming the order of the First Additional Rent Controller dated 23rd September, 1966 holding that the landlord bonafide required the permises in question for occupation as residence for himself and for his family members dependent upon him and that he was not in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation and on his finding, making an order of eviction against the tenant with a direction to vacate the premises Within six months from the date of the order. Both the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal left the parties to bear their own costs.

(2.) On second appeal, which would not lie under the statute unless it involved some substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant has, at the very outset, pressed his application under Order 6, Rule 17' and section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, read with Rule 2S-of the Rules framed under the Act, praying for amendment of his reply to the application for eviction presented before the Rent Controller and also for amendment of the grounds of appeal in this Court. The amendment sought in the reply before the Rent Controller read as under:-

(3.) The additional ground sought to be taken in this Court is in the following terms: -