CHAMAN LAL Vs. MUNHI RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant Petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Faridkot, dated 2nd August, l915, whereby the tenant's appeal was dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment was maintained.

(2.) THE landlord Respondent has moved an application in this Court Civil Misc No. 58C 11/1980, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to amend the ejectment application. The amendment sought is that that the necessary ingredients as provided under Section 13 (3) (a (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 949, have not been pleaded, which according, to him, are necessary in view of the Supreme Court authority as well as the Full Bench authority of this Court. The learned Counsel for the tenant -Petitioner does not oppose this application for amendment, but he has contended that the revision petition should be accepted on this ground alone and the case be remanded to the Rent Controller for fresh decision after allowing the necessary amendment. In support of his contention, he had cited Sahi Ram v. Ram Avtar and others,1979 (1) R.C.J. 611 and Lalji Das v. Walaiti(sic) Ram (1980)82 P.L. R. 17. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the landlord submits that after allowing the necessary amendment, a report be sent for from the Rent Controller through the Appellate Authority and the matter may be finally decided after the receipt of the report.

(3.) IT is true that there are two courses open to this Court that is either to send for a report and after the receipt of the report, the matter be decided finally or to set aside the orders of the Authorities below and remand the case to the Rent Controller for deciding it afresh after allowing the necessary amendments It cannot be contended that the report can -not be set for by this Court As a matter of fact in such like cases where this technical objection is being taken by the tenants for the first time in their revision petitions because of the recent judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court, the proper course should be to allow the amendment and get the necessary reports, particularly(sic) in their case when the application for ejectment on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation, was filed in the year 1972 Now setting aside those orders and remanding the case to the Rent Controller to decide it afresh, will again relegate the parties to their old position. When the ejectment is sought on the ground of personal requirement, it is obvious the matter should be decided as expeditiously, as possible, otherwise, the very purpose may be frustrated if the matter is delayed unnecessarily, particularly when the same can be avoided by leading for a report Consequently, the amendment of the ejectment application it allowed and the case is sent back to the Rent Controller for submitting the report within three months from today, after allowing the tenant to file his amended written statement, if any, and recording the evidence of the parties, only on the necessary ingredients which have been pleaded now after the amendment The report will tenant through the Appellate Authority, who will send the same to this Court within one month thereof The parties have been directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 4th February, 980. The case of set down for hearing immediately after the report is received in this Court. The records of the case be sent to the Rent Controller without any delay.