SAMRAT SALES Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred by the tenant- petitioners challenging the order dtd. 26/7/2024 passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala whereby the application for amendment of the ejectment application filed by the landlord-respondents was allowed. The tenant-petitioners have also prayed for quashing the rent proceedings pending before the Rent Controller.

(2.) Brief facts relevant to the present /is are that on 10/5/2017 the landlord-respondents filed an ejectment application seeking eviction of the tenant-petitioners from the premises in dispute on inter-alia the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal bonafide necessity. The tenant- petitioners filed the written statement on 14/7/2021 and the matter was adjourned to 28/7/2021 for rejoinder, if any, as well as for framing of issues and for tendering of rent. On 28/7/2021 the landlord-respondents moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the ejectment application seeking to add ground (iv) for eviction of the tenant-petitioners. The said ground (iv) sought to be inserted reads as under :

(3.) Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioners would contend that the Rent Controller erred in allowing the amendment application. According to counsel the amendment has no relevance to the eviction proceedings as the ground sought to be raised is not a ground for eviction available under the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. It is argued that the amendment application was filed at a belated stage and would change the nature of the dispute. Lastly it was argued that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to decide the ejectment application since the premises in dispute belong to the Municipal Committee and are therefore exempt from the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.