TRIBUAWAN BHARDWAJ Vs. VIJAY KUMAR SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vijay Kumar Saini landlord respondent filed all application under Section 13 of the Haryana (Urban Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the tenant petitioner on various grounds including the conversion of the user of the premises in dispute from residential to commercial purposes in the year 1982. This petition was allowed by the Rent Controller, Hissar, on 17.10.1984 and the tenant-petitioner was ordered to be ejected. Tenant petitioner filed and appeal against the said order and the Appellate Authority (allowed ?) filed an application for additional evidence as well as an application under Order 6, rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure. The case was sent back to the trial court for recording the additional evidence as well as deciding the application under Order 6, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement. Rent Controller recorded additional evidence as per directions of the Appellate Authority and by the impugned order rejected the application under Order 6, rule 17 for permission to amend the written statement. Tenant petitioner has come in revision against the said order.

(2.) The premises in dispute were taken on rent in the year 1972 and the present petition was filed in the year 1982. The amendment sought to be incorporated in the written statement is that in para 2(4) of the written statement it has been stated that the premises in dispute are being used as clinic for the last 5/6 years instead of 10/11 years and the tenant-petitioner be permitted to amend the written statement to incorporate the plea that the premises are being used as clinic for the last 10/11 years.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Parties led their evidence and in the ejectment order dated 17.10.1984, effect of the plea that the premises in dispute are being used as a clinic for the last 5/6 years has been discussed at length. If the tenant-petitioners is permitted to amend the written statement and take the plea that the premises are being used as a clinic for the last 10/11 years then it would be rendered infructuous Amendments which change the nature on the suit or result in necessitating the opposite party to face a totally new and contradictory plea on which evidence has already been led cannot be permitted at this stage. Had there been any typographical mistake as has been alleged in the application seeking amendment of the written statement regarding the number of years then the same could have been allowed. The landlord-respondent shall have to change his pleadings as well as the evidence which has already been led by him or in other words it would amount to a de novo trial. The rent application is pending before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority for the last nine years. In view of this as well I am not inclined to order de novo trial. The Authority should have decided the application under Order 6 rule 17 for amendment of the written statement itself but instead of doing the same, the Appellate Authority sent the application for amendment of the pleadings to the Rent Controller for decision. Finding no infirmity in the order of the Rent Controller I affirm the same. Revision petition is dismissed. No costs.