RAJIV PANWAR Vs. BAHAL SINGH DHINDSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in revision aggrieved against the order dated 1.3.2013 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby the application of the tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement has been dismissed. It is stated that in the eviction petition filed by the respondent/NRI-landlord under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised residential house, the petitioner/tenant had filed a written statement, after being granted leave to contest, with the averment that the landlord has not produced the sale deed on record whereby he alleges himself to have become owner of the demised residential house. It is further stated that at the time of examination of the landlord, the relevant sale deed was exhibited whereupon the tenant had in the cross examination of the landlord asserted that the boundaries of the property in the sale deed do not match with the demised residential house and therefore, the tenant moved the aforesaid application praying for amendment of the written statement to take up the plea of the aforesaid boundaries not being similar.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant has argued that the amendment proposing to take up the plea of the bounties in the sale deed produced as shown in conviction petition did not match is absolutely necessary for the proper decision of the case.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 1.3.2013. It is apparent that the said sale deed was placed on the court file while submitting the list of documents on 21.3.2012 and the written statement by the tenant was filed on 11.6.2012. It is further apparent that the learned Rent Controller has declined the prayer for amendment in view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and the tenant having not shown that the amendment despite due diligence could not be made before the trial had commenced. Be that as it may, it cannot be disputed that the onus would always be upon the landlord to show that he is owner of the demised premises and in case the boundaries, as alleged, do not match with the sale deed produced on record it would certainly require due evaluation by the learned Rent Controller.