SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. NEER JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order being assailed, dated 17.09.2015, rendered by Rent Controller, Mukerian, the application moved by the petitioner-tenant, seeking amendment in the written statement, had since been dismissed. The conclusion arrived in this regard reads as thus:

(2.) All what is sought to be pleaded by the petitioner vide the proposed amendment is that the respondent-landlord has filed the eviction petition with an intent to sell the property after getting it vacated and, thereafter, he wishes to settle abroad. Concededly, in the written statement filed by the petitioner, he had denied and disputed the alleged need of the landlord to occupy the premises for his personal bona fide necessity. And, the respondent-landlord has already been cross-examined by the petitioner as regards his personal bona fide need. Petitioner is yet to lead and conclude his evidence. Needless to assert, he would be at liberty to adduce appropriate evidence to vitiate the alleged need. That being so, the amendment prayed for is wholly misconceived and was rightly declined. Even otherwise, the issues were framed as back as on 23.01.2012. Thereafter, respondent-landlord had closed his evidence on 16.07.2014. Despite having availed three effective opportunities, petitioner failed to lead any evidence. It was at this stage, an application was moved by the petitioner, seeking amendment, with a sole purpose to delay and derail the proceedings.

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