RAJA RAM PHOOL CHAND Vs. KULWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision petition is order dtd. 18/10/2022 passed by Rent Controller, Ludhiana in a rent petition titled 'Kulwinder Singh and others Vs.M/s Raja Ram Phool Chand and another' vide which he had dismissed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by respondents/tenants seeking amendment of written statement. Such respondents/tenants are revisionists before this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that petitioners had brought an ejectment petition against respondents/tenants on the ground of the premises being required by petitioner No.2 Jasvinder Singh for opening his office as an Advocate. As per the case of the petitioners, such petitioner No.2 Jasvinder Singh was earlier working with his father Sh.Harbhajan Singh in his office at Model Town, Ludhiana, thereafter he wanted to have his own independent office because office of Sh.Harbhajan Singh was not sufficient for the entire staff and requirement of petitioner No.2. Separate ejectment petitions had been filed against M/s Raja Ram Phool Chand and another as well as against another tenant M/s Sokhi Auto Industries on the ground of bona fide need.

(3.) On notice, the respondents/tenants put in appearance and contested the rent petition contending that there was no bona fide need of the demised premises as claimed in the rent petition. The office of Sh.Harbhajan Singh is enough for use by his son Jasvinder Singh as well. The respondents prayed for dismissal of the rent petition in question.