MULKH RAJ Vs. KIRPAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act directing against the order of the Rent Controller, Amritsar, dated the 7th December, 1960 refusing to permit the tenant an amendment in his written statement. This revision was admitted by Bishan Narain, J., on 28th December, 1960 and notice was issued for a very early date, further proceedings have been stayed meanwhile. The respondents in this Court are two ladies who have filed the petition for ejectment under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. They have not appeared in spite of service with the result that this revision has been heard ex parte.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, an application by Shrimati Kirpal Kaur wife of S. Harnam Singh and Shrimati Swaran Kaur widow of S. Sohan Singh against Mulkh Raj for the latter's eviction was filed on 22nd August, 1960. The written statement by the tenants was filed on 16th November, 1960. 30th November, 1960 was fixed for replication by the landladies. On 25th November, 1960 the application for amendment giving rise to the present revision was filed by Mulkh Raj under Order 6 rule 17, Civil Procedure Code. In this petition two preliminary objections were sought to be raised. The first objection related to the competency of a joint petition by the two ladies and such a joint petition was objected to on the ground that the cause of action in favour of the two ladies was different and that hey had individual and separate rights to relief. The second objection was sought to be based on the plea that since Shrimati Swaran Kaur had received rent by money order dated 31st July, 1960, nothing was due to her upto 20th August, 1960 when the petition for eviction was filed. She, therefore, could not join Shrimati Kirpal Kaur in the present proceedings. A third plea, which was sought to be raised, related to the copies filed by the landlord. It was sought to be urged that those copies were not true copies. It was, however, further sought to be clarified that the two ladies should have filed separate petitions. This, it may be mentioned, relates to the first preliminary objection which the tenant wanted to raise by means of this application for amendment. Notice for this application was duly given to the landladies who put in their replies on 7th December, 1960. The amendment was posed on two grounds. In the first instance, it was urged that there is no provision for amending the pleadings in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. In the second place it was urged that the amendment sought would change the defence in its entirety and therefore should not be allowed.

(3.) The Rent Controller, while disallowing the amendment, passed the following order :-