URMILA SHARMA Vs. LAKHWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order being assailed dated 19.01.2015, rendered by Rent Controller, Jalandhar, prayer of the petitioner-landlord seeking amendment in the eviction petition has since been rejected. Vide a proposed amendment, it is sought to be pleaded that during the pendency of the eviction petition, one shop bearing No.3 had fallen vacant, which also forms part of the building in which the shop in question is situated. However, because of the location of the said shop, since it abuts a staircase, no extension is feasible to conduct a tailoring business. Therefore, the same was let out to Mukal Sharma on 01.01.2014. Vide a proposed amendment, the petitioner intended to incorporate this subsequent development in the petition.

(2.) In response, the prayer was opposed. And it was maintained that the petitioner had already made an admission in this regard in his cross examination. And the proposed amendment was, nothing but a ploy to wriggle out of the said admission. Thus, the application was devoid of merit.

(3.) On a consideration of the matter in issue, the learned Rent Controller arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner-landlord had already been cross-examined in part. During the course of cross examination, he had conceded that one shop which was earlier rented out to Vishal had fallen vacant and was subsequently, let out to another tenant namely Mukal. Once that was so, all what was required to be seen was the effect of this aspect and development upon the case of the petitioner at an appropriate stage. Accordingly, it was concluded: