HARBHAJAN KAUR Vs. KULDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlords have preferred this revision petition against order, Annexure P6, dated 8.7.2014, dismissing application of the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the ejectment petition claiming that the amendment is essential and necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the controversy involved in the ejectment petition.

(2.) Through the application for amendment filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the landlords sought to incorporate a plea that the landlords are also owners of five other shops in addition to the shop in dispute. The said fact could not be inadvertently mentioned in the application.

(3.) The tenant-respondent contested the application on the ground that the petitioners have already led their evidence to the effect that they do not have any other shop in their names. The necessary ingredients of provisions of Section 13 (3) (ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, have not been pleaded and proved. The application is also contested on the ground that by permitting the amendment inconsistent pleadings should not be permitted to be taken on record and that the defence raised by the tenant-respondent that the petitioners, as a matter of fact, are owners of five other shops regarding which ejectment petitions have already been filed, would be defeated.