SUNIL KUMAR Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order being assailed dated 20.08.2015, rendered by Rent Controller, Yamuna Nagar, at Jagadhri, application moved by the petitioner-landlord under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment in the eviction petition has since been dismissed. The conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller in this regard, reads as thus:

(2.) All what is sought to be urged vide proposed amendment is that in an earlier eviction petition preferred by the petitioner he had prayed for eviction for his own personal bona fide need. However, in the present eviction petition, he has sought ejectment for the need/requirement of his son. Secondly, the petitioner, post death of his father, along with his brothers and sisters had inherited certain properties. Concededly, the eviction petition was filed on 08.12.2010. In the written statement filed by the respondent, the fact as regards the previous eviction petition as also that the petitioner along with other heirs of his father had since succeeded to certain properties in the local urban area, was duly pleaded. Both the parties have already led and concluded their respective evidence. Petitioner-landlord has already been cross-examined, in this regard. And respondent has also led an evidence on this aspect. Therefore, what is sought to be pleaded by way of proposed amendment has already been brought on record and the Court would take cognizance thereof, while passing the final order. The application seeking amendment of the eviction petition was moved on 11.08.2015, when the matter was fixed for rebuttal and arguments. Ex facie, the application was moved to improve upon his case by the petitioner and to fill up the lacunas.

(3.) That being so, no interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted. The petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.