DHARMESH KUMAR Vs. PREM KUMAR GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dtd. 17/2/2020 passed by the learned Rent Controller allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the ejectment petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that by way of the present amendment the respondent-landlord is seeking to fill in the lacuna in his case inasmuch as in the ejectment petition an essential ingredient that his wife had not vacated any such building in the urban area concerned without any sufficient cause had not been pleaded. It is further the contention that this was a fact well within the knowledge of the respondent-landlord and, hence, the amendment ought not to have been allowed. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed in Arjun Chand Vs. Smt. Shama Joshi [2011(44) RCR (Civil) 874] to contend that the amendment could not have been allowed to fill in the lacuna in the case.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the case is still at the initial stage and issues yet to be framed. It is further the contention that the proposed amendment is only explanatory in nature and would not change the tone and tenor of the ejectment petition in any manner. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment in the case of Hari Krishan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kalra and Anr. [2020(2) RCR (Rent) 1] to contend that amendment incorporating the basic ingredient of Sec. 13(3)(a)(i) would cause no prejudice to the tenant. It is further being contended by the learned counsel by relying upon the judgments in Rahul Jain Vs. Prahlad Singh [2014(4) RCR (Civil) 965] and M/s Bhatia Cloth House Vs. Dr. Raj Kumar Gupta and Anr. [2008(2) RCR (Rent) 281], that even in case there is any defect in the pleadings with regard to the essential ingredients of personal necessity, the same would not be fatal to the petitioner and can be rectified immediately on such an objection being raised. It is further the contention that the same could also be made good by way of evidence, which would be duly considered by the Court.