RATTAN LAL SARIN Vs. KEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Ferozepur, dated October 28, 1989, whereby the application filed by the landlord for the amendment of the ejectment application was dismissed.

(2.) ORIGINALLY , the ejectment application was filed in the year 1987, when the parties had closed their evidence, the landlord moved an application for amendment of the petition as to include the plea that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises; hence he was liable for ejectment. That application was contested on behalf of the tenant. The allegation made therein were denied. It was asserted that the tenant was running his business in the shop and, therefore, no question of this ceasing to occupy the same arose. However, the learned Rent Controller decided the said application on merits and came to the conclusion that the landlord had failed to prove that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Of course, the approach of the learned Rent Controller in this behalf was wrong and illegal. In the application for amendment, it could not be held as to whether the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises or not. The said application could either be dismissed or allowed. This proposition is not being contested either by the tenant-respondent. Since it is an independent ground which is available to the landlord, he may file an ejectment application on that ground and the impugned order will not stand in his way in any manner. With these observations, the civil revision is disposed of.