TEK CHAND Vs. BISHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-landlord filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') for eviction of his tenant Bishan Dass, inter alia on the ground that the accommodation with him was in sufficient for his need and, therefore, he wanted to get the tenant evicted. The Rent Controller accepted the plea of the petitioner and ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground that the petitioner needed the premises in dispute for his personal use.

(2.) Bishan Dass, the tenant, filed an appeal against the orders of his eviction. He made an application before the appellate authority for amendment of the written statement claiming that the premises in dispute were a shop and as such he could not be evicted. This application was allowed on 9th of August, 1974 and the tenant was permitted to amend his written statement. At the same time, the Rent Controller had been directed to conduct further inquiry into the case after receiving the amended statement. The appellate authority had framed the following issue :-

(3.) The Rent Controller after recording evidence, found that the rented premises were a non-residential building and as such the tenant could not be evicted by the landlord on the ground of personal necessity. The appellate Authority also agreed with this finding and held that the premises in dispute were obtained by the tenant in connection with his business of a washerman and the building had been mentioned as a shop in the rent-deed itself. At this stage, the landlord made an application seeking permission to amend his ejectment application. He wanted to take the ground that the tenant had changed user of the building and that he had started residing in the building along with the members of his family. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this was a very fair prayer. The tenant had been allowed to amend his written statement and raise a plea which was directly opposed to his earlier plea. On that basis evidence had also come that the premises in dispute were non-residential. The interests of justice acquired that the landlord should be allowed to amend his ejectment application and raised a ground that the tenant had changed the user of the non-residential premises by starting living therein along with the members of his family. The main reason for the refusal of this amendment was that the landlord sought to raise a contradictory plea. However, this plea arose from the facts and the circumstances, which were brought out on the file by the tenant himself. The landlord had not the opportunity to plead these facts earlier. There is no absolute, bar in allowing the amendment which may in a sense be contradictory to the plea raised earlier. The justice of the case demanded that the landlord was allowed to make amendment in the petition. The order of the Appellate Authority is clearly illegal.