JAGJIT SINGH Vs. MOHINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's prayer for amendment of his petition Under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, having been rejected by the trial Court, he has approached this Court through the present revision petition. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE respondent-tenant instituted a suit on August 17, 1992 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-landlord (the petitioner in this Revision Petition) from dispossessing him forcibly from the shop in dispute. In the plaint, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-1 with this revision petition, it was averred in paragraph 1 that the shop had been let out to him at the monthly rent of Rs. 100/ -. The landlord appeared before the trial Court and deposed on oath that "he never intended to dispossess the plaintiff from the shop in dispute forcibly or by any other illegal means nor he has such intention in future. " Accordingly, vide order dated September 14, 1992, Sub Judge 1st Class, Dasuya decreed the suit. After a few days, on September 19, 1992, the landlord-petitioner filed a petition Under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. In this petition, it was mentioned that the rate of rent was Rs. 40/- per month. It was further averred that the tenant-respondent had not paid rent since March 26, 1990. Notice of this petition was given to the respondent-tenant for October 19, 1992. He appeared and tendered the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month w. e. f. March 26, 1990. The case was adjourned to November 16, 1992 for filing of written statement. On that date, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed praying for permission to amend the petition. In this application, it was inter alia mentioned that the rate of rent had been wrongly mentioned as Rs. 40/- per month instead of Rs. 100/- per month. It was further mentioned that the tenant had failed to pay rent since November 1, 1989 instead of March 26, 1990. Consequently, a prayer for permission to amend the petition with regard to the rate of rent and the date from which the respondent-tenant had failed to pay rent was made. Vide order dated August 23, 1993, the learned Rent Controller has rejected this application on the ground that it will amount to withdrawal of admission and setting up of a new case. Hence this petition.

(3.) WITHOUT going into the merits of the controversy, the short question is - Can a prayer for amendment of a petition be declined merely on the ground that it would amount to withdrawal of an admission ?