RAJINDER SINGH Vs. HARI KRISHAN KAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-tenant against the order dated 23.4.2015 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide which his application under Order 6, Rule 17 , CPC, seeking amendment of written statement has been declined.

(2.) Facts in brief are that the respondent herein (landlord) has filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short - the Act) for the ejectment of the petitioner herein (tenant) from the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity, which is stated to be pending before the learned Rent Controller. The tenant filed written statement in this petition. Now during the pendency of this petition, the tenant filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 , CPC, for amendment of written statement. Reply to this application was obtained. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, this application was declined by the learned Rent Controller vide this impugned order, which necessitated to file the instant revision petition.

(3.) In the application under Order 6, Rule 17 , CPC, filed by the tenant to amend the written statement, it has been mentioned that he wants to add paras No. 6 to 9 in preliminary objections. The proposed paras No. 6 to 9 are as under:-