BALDEV SINGH Vs. R.P. KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.7.2010 passed by Rent Controller, Jalandhar by which an application filed by the landlord for amendment of the eviction petition has been declined.

(2.) In brief, the landlord filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) in order to seek eviction of the tenant from the demised premises (shop), inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent, nuisance and personal necessity. The eviction petition was filed on 24.5.2006 to which written statement was filed on 21.7.2006. The landlord filed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) in order to insert averment "that the petitioner is not occupying any other building in the urban area of Jalandhar. That he has not got vacated such a building in the urban area". This application was contested by the tenant by filing a reply and was ultimately dismissed by the learned Rent Controller observing that the issues were framed on 30.11.2006, the landlord closed his evidence on 5.11.2009 and respondent closed his evidence on 17.2.2010 and when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence or in the alternative for arguments, application has been filed. Besides the delay, it is also observed that the amendment neither pertains to a new fact or a subsequent event which was not within the knowledge of the landlord, which could be taken by him earlier, nor it is a case that despite exercise of due diligence it was not within his knowledge.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this amendment is to satisfy the statutory requirement which would not change the nature of the eviction petition and could be inserted by way of an amendment. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar, 1990 1 SCC 166.