SUKHWINDER SINGH Vs. DARSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act), brought by the petitioner-landlord is pending adjudication for eviction of the respondenttenant Darshan Lal, wherein ground, inter-alia, of personal necessity has been set forth. It remains a fact that for pleading this ground, a landlord in compliance with the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act is also required to plead that he is not keeping any other residential building in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act in the said urban area.

(2.) During the pendency of the petition, though at a much later stage, the petitioner noticed that there was glaring defect in the drafting of the petition wherein such plea was non-existent. Consequently, an application was made by the landlord before the Rent Controller for seeking amendment of the petition but such request was declined on 16.5.2013. It is this order which is now under challenge in this revision petition preferred by the landlord invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Stand of the petitioner-landlord is that the amendment sought for goes to the root of the matter and unless allowed to be carried out, renders the pleadings of the landlord wanting in material particulars. It is claimed that dismissal of the application for amendment of the petition vide the impugned order has resulted in grave prejudice to the petitionerlandlord. It is claimed that delay in bringing any such application for amendment by itself is not a ground for rejection of the application for amendment.