AMARPREET SINGH Vs. MOHINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in revision aggrieved against the order dated 9.5.2012(P8) passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar whereby the application of the tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement during the pendency of his appeal against his eviction order dated 5.3.2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, has been dismissed.

(2.) It is stated that the respondent/landlady moved an ejectment petition on 12.5.2007 before the learned Rent Controller seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises comprising the front portion of H.No.332, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar City on the ground of arrears of rent and personal necessity of the landlady for opening a restaurant in the said portion (since the area is declared to be a commercial area). Tenant contested the said petition. The learned Rent Controller, vide judgement and order dated 5.3.2011 allowed the ejectment petition only on the ground of personal necessity of the landlady. The tenant filed an appeal on 22.3.2011 before the learned Appellate Authority,Jalandhar and after a period of one year filed the present application dated 21.2.2012(P6) seeking to amend the written statement by incorporating preliminary objection nos. 7 to 9. The landlady contested the same by filing reply. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 9.5.2012 on the premise that said facts sought to be now introduced were throughout in the knowledge of the tenant and if any amendment was sought to be made, the same was to be made before the learned Rent Controller at that particular stage.

(3.) During the course of hearing before this Court, the counsel for the tenant has stressed upon the incorporation of preliminary objection no.8 only since it was alleged to be a subsequent event. The event sought to be introduced is that after the filing of the eviction petition, the other tenants in the same building have vacated the premises in their possession and thus the proposed personal necessity would be sufficiently satisfied with the subsequently vacated premises, nullifying the proposed need. It was further submitted that the landlady in her cross examination has admitted this fact that another portion in the same building has become vacant and available to the landlady and therefore, except incorporation in the written statement no other evidence is required to be led.