MANAGING DIRECTOR, MARKFED, PUNJAB Vs. S.C. BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dtd. 4/3/2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Rent Controller whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of the ejectment petition has been allowed.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that S.C. Bhalla, the owner of the premises in dispute, filed an ejectment petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Rent Act') for eviction of the petitioner herein from the entire first, second and third floors of SCO No.22, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh on the grounds of sub-letting, personal nity eof tchisessity, material alteration, impairing the value and utility of the premises, ceased to occupy and non-payment of rent. During the pendency of the ejectment petition, S.C. Bhalla, the original owner, died and thereafter his legal representatives were impleaded as parties. After being impleaded as parties, the legal representatives moved an application for amendment of the ejectment petition for pleading his own bonafide personal necessity. Respondent No.1 herein wanted to add para 10-A after para 10 to state that he did not own and possess any other commercial property in the urban area of Chandigarh and has not vacated the same and also wanted to substitute para No.11 that since the petitioner herein has not paid the arrears of rent qua the premises, so the cause of action is still continuing. The amendment application was allowed vide the impugned order dtd. 4/3/2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the ejectment petition was filed on the ground of bonafide personal necessity of S.C. Bhalla and after his death, in case respondent No.1 herein wanted to plead his own bonafide personal necessity, a separate ejectment petition would be required to be filed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyawati Vs. Man Mohan [1996 (2) RentLR 214].