INDER SINGH Vs. INDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana dated March 13, 1989, refusing permission to the tenant to amend the written statement to incorporate the plea that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'landlord') had earlier filed an application for eviction against him. The application was rejected by the Appellate Authority and the order was affirmed on revision by this Court on April 14, 1981. The present application for eviction was filed by the landlord against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') on March, 2, 1985, after this Court had dismissed the revision petition filed by the landlord against the order of Appellate Authority, dismissing the application for eviction.

(2.) THE Rent Controller has misdirected himself in disallowing the application under Order 6, rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, for amendment of the written statement. He appears to have been swayed by the consideration that the ground for eviction in the application for eviction is different from the one pleaded earlier. He did not appreciate that the tenant can prove by pleading necessary facts that the landlord did not bonafide require the demised premises. In the instant case, the tenant only wanted to give the history of the previous litigation inter partes which ought to have been permitted. Even if the amendment of the written statement was sought at a belated stage, the other party could have been compensated by costs. The delay in moving the application for amendment of the pleading cannot be made an yardstick for declining the prayer for amendment.

(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the Rent Controller is set aside. The tenant is permitted to make the necessary amendment in the written statement as prayed for in the application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code. The Rent Controller will permit him to produce the certified copies of the orders of the Rent Controller, Appellate Authority and this Court. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.