PARKASH Vs. JATINDER KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition arises in the circumstances which are these. The respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Rent (Control & Eviction) Act, 1973 for the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute. The ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller. The landlord preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Sirsa. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner-tenant moved an application for permission to amend the written statement so as to raise an objection that a second ejectment application filed by the landlord before the Rent Controller for eviction of the petitioner had since been withdrawn and on account of this subsequent event, the earlier ejectment application which was the basis of the appeal, should be rejected. The Appellate Authority, however, declined the prayer for amendment and directed the appeal to be heard. It is against this order of the Appellate Authority that the present Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant.

(2.) Mr. N.K. Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the withdrawal of the second ejectment application in which the allegations for the eviction of the petitioner were the same, the first ejectment application was liable to be dismissed and hence the Appellate Authority ought to have allowed the amendment of the written statement. There is no merit in this contention of the learned counsel. The second ejectment application pertained to the alleged default committed by the petitioner in the payment of rent for different period, though some other grounds of eviction were also added which had been taken in the earlier ejectment application also. The learned counsel has sought support from Messrs Bagarian Armoury v. Rakha Ram,1966 68 PunLR 847, but the said case has no application and is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the landlord has filed an ejectment application on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent for a certain period. Subsequently, he filed the second ejectment application on the ground of non-payment of rent for a longer period which included the period mentioned in the earlier ejectment application. The tenant tendered the entire arrears of rent on the first date of hearing in the second application. On account of this circumstance, the first ejectment application was found to have become infructuous. There is no such thing in the present case. Neither any statutory provision nor authority has been cited by the learned counsel to support his contention which, on the face of it, is not tenable.

(3.) The Revision Petition is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.