SOM NATH Vs. GUPTA RAM KHATRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dtd. 3/8/2021 passed by Rent Controller, Ludhiana vide which he had dismissed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by respondent- tenant Som Nath for amendment of the written statement.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner/landlord Gupta Ram Khatri had brought a petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against respondent ' tenant Som Nath seeking ejectment of the latter from a shop No.19 situated at Faridkot House, Chaura Bazar, District Ludhiana on the ground of personal necessity. On getting notice, the respondent-tenant appeared and filed written reply contesting the petition raising various legal pleas further contending that the petitioner ' landlord had suppressed the material facts from this Court and the ground of personal necessity put forward by him is misconceived since he had got several properties situated in the localities at Prem Nagar, Islam Ganj, Ludhiana as well as a property at Ghumar Mandi and one property at Dugri Road apart from other properties regarding which details would be submitted later on and his two sons are settled in Canada, whereas third son is employed in bank.

(3.) The Rent Controller, Ludhiana had framed issues and thereafter petitioner-landlord was asked to produce evidence, which he did and then the case was fixed for evidence of respondent, during the course of which respondent moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 CPC for amendment of the written statement contending that in the written statement originally filed, details of other properties owned by the petitioner could not be given and it was stated that the same would be furnished later on and now the respondent has come to know that the petitioner also owns other properties detailed below: