VIJAY SHARMA Vs. SWARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of the India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 06.02.2015 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Rent Controller U.T. Chandigarh vide which evidence of the petitioner (tenant) has been closed by order and order dated 24.02.2015 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Rent Controller U.T. Chandigarh vide which the application moved by the petitioner (tenant) for amendment of written statement has been rejected. Both the said orders are stated to be wrong, illegal being contrary to the facts on the file and without exercise of proper jurisdiction.

(2.) Regarding abovesaid order dated 06.02.2015 zimni orders passed by the learned Rent Controller are incorporated in this revision petition and from perusal thereof, it is transpired that the respondentlandlord had availed six opportunities to produce their evidence and close the same. The present petitioner-tenant also availed six opportunities to lead his evidence. Last date granted to him in this regard was 06.02.2015. On this date, he did not bother to lead any evidence and as such, his evidence was closed by order vide the impugned order dated 06.02.2015 (Annexure P-5). From the above, it is very much clear that the present petitioner has been granted ample opportunities by the learned Rent Controller to lead his evidence, but anyhow in the interest of justice he is granted one more opportunity to lead and conclude his evidence before the learned Rent Controller subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/-, half of which is to be deposited in the Legal Aid Fund and remaining to be paid to the landlordrespondent. Consequently the impugned order (Annexure P-5) dated 06.02.2015 is set aside.

(3.) The second impugned order dated 24.02.2015 (Annexure P-7) has been passed on the application dated 24.02.2015 filed by the present petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151, CPC, for amendment of the written statement. Vide this application, he wants to take the pleas that petitioner No.2 is owner of MIG house in Sector 44, Chandigarh. Then during pendency of the petition, the entire second floor of House No.1275 Sector 15-B, Chandigarh was given on rent by the petitioners. The said facts were not within his knowledge earlier. Then it is also his plea that as per his knowledge petitioner No.2 had left for U.S.A. with the intention to reside there. But the respondent-tenant did not attach any document along with this application to show that petitioner No.2 is owing a MIG house in Sector 44, Chandigarh. Further it is also not mentioned with any specific date as to when the petitioners rented out the entire second floor of House No.1275, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh. Then there is also no definite date given as to when petitioner No.2 had allegedly left for U.S.A. to reside therein. Then it is also found that the instant application has been filed before the learned Rent Controller when the case was fixed for rebuttal and arguments. Then it is also not mentioned with any certainty in the application as to when the petitioner-tenant came to know about the alleged subsequent events regarding which he sought amendment in the written statement vide this application. Then as per the record, it is also found that petitioner-tenant had also earlier filed another application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for the amendment of the written statement which was disposed of vide order dated 01.07.2014.