KAMLA DEVI Vs. PRAN NATH SUDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed an application for ejectment of the respondent from the house in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. The petition was opposed by the tenant and all the material allegations controverted. He further pleaded that Petition was not maintainable as all the tenants had not been impleaded as party. The Rent Controller rejected the defence and ordered ejectment on the ground of personal necessity. On appeal by the tenant, the appellate authority found that the petition was bad for not impleading the other co-tenants and also because the two other necessary ingredients of section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, called the Act) had not been pleaded. Consequently, the order of the Rent Controller was reversed and the petition dismissed vide judgment dated December 3, 1976. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed this revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which was transferred to this Court after the amendment of the Act.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the correctness of the view of the appellate authority regarding the pleading of the necessary ingredients of section 13 (3)(a)(i) but prays that he may be allowed to amend the petition to make the necessary pleadings. Ordinarily, if this prayer is made even at the revisional stage, this Court has been allowing the amendment and the case is remanded for fresh trial to the Rent Controller for amendment But in this case, inspite of the objection having been raised at the appellate stage, the learned counsel for the landlord insisted that there was no necessity to make any amendment in the pleadings. In view of this conduct of the petitioner. I am of the view that she is not entitled to make the prayer at the revisional stage that she may be allowed to amend the petition. That apart, this petition has been pending since the year 1973. Even if the pleadings are allowed to be amended at this stage, the case has to be remanded for fresh trial. As this petition has been dismissed on technical objections, it would not debar another petition for ejectment on the ground of personal necessity. So, the petitioner would not be prejudiced in any manner by not allowing her to amend the petition. As regards the second ground that the co-tenants have not been impleaded. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged its correctness on facts but I do not propose to go into that matter because the petition is being dismissed for non-pleading of the necessary ingredients of section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act and any decision in these proceedings on the question of not-impleading of the co-tenants would not operate as res judicata in any further proceedings.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed. No costs.