KAPIL KUMAR Vs. CHARANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/tenant is impugning the order dtd. 28/10/2021 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh (Annexure P-3) vide which his application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') for amendment of the written statement was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is patently erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law pertaining to amendment of pleadings. She submits that the Rent Controller while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that the respondent/landlord in his cross-examination had categorically admitted that he had earlier filed a petition under Sec. 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and the instant eviction petition had been filed by him without seeking permission to file a fresh one. She submits that the proposed amendment is based on the evidence led by the parties and would not in any manner cause prejudice to the respondent/landlord in case it is allowed. She asserts that as per the settled principles of law, amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage, moreso since it would enable the Court to determine the real issue between the parties. In support, she has placed reliance upon M/s Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manohar Lal : 2017(1) RCR (Ren) 259 (SC); Amar Singh V/s Nirmal Singh and another : 2016(3) RCR (Civil) 192 (PHHC) and Sahib Singh and another Vs. Kuldeep Kumar and others : 2010(41) RCR (Civil) 777 (PHHC).

(3.) The petitioner is seeking amendment of his written statement in the wake of certain admissions made by the respondent/landlord during his cross-examination before the Rent Controller. It would be pertinent to point out here that after the conclusion of the respondent/landlord's evidence, the case was fixed for petitioner's evidence and ever since then i.e. 14/3/2019, despite availing numerous opportunities for almost one and a half years to conclude his evidence, the petitioner has failed to do so and instead moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code at a highly belated stage. In the instant case from the conduct of the petitioner/tenant, it is clearly discernible and there is no manner of doubt, that he has been engaging in dilatory tactics.