SIMLA DEVI Vs. GOPI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the last date of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court that the present Revision Petition had become infructuous in view of the fact that the petitioner had filed another ejectment application against the respondent in the Court of Shri G. C. Suman, Rent Controller, Ludhiana, in which the grounds of sub- letting had been taken and the said application was pending in that Court. Mr. Nijjar, learned counsel for the petitioner obtained an adjournment to take instructions in this behalf. When the case was taken up today, Mr. Nijjar stated at the bar that according to his instructions, the second ejectment application was not filed on the ground of sub-letting. Mr. Jhanji, learned counsel for the respondent, however, produced a copy of the amended petition in that ejectment case, wherein the ground of sub-letting had been specifically taken. In view of this fact, Mr. Nijjar is unable to rebut the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The present Revision Petition arises out of the order passed by the Rent Controller, disallowing the prayer made on behalf of the landlady for amendment of the ejectment application so as to include the allegation that the tenant had sub-let the premises in dispute to M/s Gopi Ram Uttam Chand. If the same ground has been included in the other ejectment application between the same parties, there is no occasion to allow the amendment, as prayed for. The present Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.