SUMER CHAND JAIN Vs. VED PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlord's revision petition against the older dated 5. 2 1990 of Rent Controller, Jind, whereby application of the landlord-petitioner for amendment of the ejectment petition was dismissed.

(2.) LANDLORD petitioner moved an application for ejectment of the respondent on the grouped that the premises in dispute are required for use and occupation of his son Shri Mukesh who is to be married and that the back portion of the building is in dilapidated condition and required to be constructed Landlord petitioner had concluded his evidence and the evidence of the tenant-respondent was in progress when the present application for amendment of the ejectment petition was filed.

(3.) IN the application for amendment of the ejectment petition, landlord wanted to take the plea that subsequent to the filing of the ejectment petition his son mukesh was married and that the petitioner-landlord or his son had not vacated any accommodation after the commencement of Haryara Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) This was done to bring on record the subsequent event j. e. marriage of his son on record and the statutory requirement of slating that the petitioner-landlord or his son had not vacated any accommodation after the commencement of the Act, An other amendment sought was that instead of the back portion being in dilapidated condition now the whole of the house was in bad shape and required to be reconstructed. 4 The application for amendment of the eject user petition was declined by the Rant Controller on the ground that the plea the building being unsafe and unfit for human habitation has already been made and, therefore, there is no necessity to allow the application to insert that whole of the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation being in dilapidated condition. I do not find this reasoning to be a sound one. Earlier it was the back portion of the premises which was in a bad condition but now the petitioner wants to plead that whole building m in bad shape. This ground is altogether different than the one earlier pleaded and moreover this is subsequent event which has coma into -existence after the filing of the ejectment petition and the petitioner landlord should have been permitted to take the plea that whole of the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation being in dilapidated condition. The other ground that Shri Mukesh son of the landlord petitioner has got married subsequent to the filing of the petition is also a subsequent event which has come into existence after the filing of the petition. The reasoning of the Rent Controller that the pleading of the landlord in the suit that his son is about to get married and the building is required for his occupation is sufficient and the fact of marriage of his son having taken place need not be brought on the record by way of amending the petition as the same can be brought on record by way of evidence. Landlord-petitioner wants to plead the necessary ingredients as per statutory requirements lest a technical objection is taken at a later stage that no amount of evidence can be led on a fact which is not pleaded In the interest of justice, the Rent Controller should have allowed the ejectment application to be amended. 5. The only other ground given by the Rent Controller for refusing the permission to amend the ejectment petition is that the same has been filed at a belated stage I dc not find any substance in that as well. The pleas sought to be introduced in the amendment application have come into existence after filing of the original petition for ejectment and as such under the circumstances, landlord-petitioner was well with his rights to seek amendment of his ejectment petition. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for respondent that the amendment is being sought to fill in the lacunae in the evidence and pleadings. 6. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition is accepted; the impugned order dated 5-2-1990 of the Rent Controller is set aside and the landlord-petitioner is permitted to amend the ejectment application filed by him. Parties through their counsel ate directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 11 12 1990.