SUNIL SHARMA Vs. SUDESH RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order being assailed, dated 01.08.2015, the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, has since declined the application moved by the petitioner-tenant seeking amendment in the written statement. The conclusion arrived at in this regard reads as thus:

(2.) Ex facie, what is sought to be pleaded by the petitioner by way of amendment is that the landlord has suppressed a material fact that she does not own or possess another property in Ludhiana, whereas she is the owner and in occupation of an adjacent shop bearing No.B-34-5655-1. Secondly, landlord and her husband are residing in an area, which is considered to be a hub of hosiery business. And thus, the said place is most suitable to start any such business.

(3.) Apparently, the proposed amendment is indeed a piece of evidence. Onus to prove that the landlord requires the premises for her bona fide need is upon the respondent herself. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, he has already disputed the alleged need. Concededly, petitioner has already cross-examined the respondent-landlord as regards the adjacent accommodation in her possession. As the petitioner is yet to lead his evidence, he shall always be at liberty to adduce any such evidence and prove that alleged requirement of the landlord was just a farce or lacked bonafides. Thus, the proposed amendment is wholly misconceived, as evidence is not required to be pleaded.