RAM PARKASH - TENANT Vs. LAHORI RAM AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lahori Ram applied under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for the eviction of his tenant Hans Raj and Ram Parkash on the ground of subletting. The application was contested by Ram Parkash in the course of the proceedings, the application of Ram Parkash for amendment of the written statement was disallowed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana. Feeling aggrieved, he has preferred this revision petition under section 15(5) of the aforesaid Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for Lahori Ram vehemently urged that application for eviction was filed in August, 1972 whereas the application for amendment was made on 1st September, 1973. On the other hand, it was pointed out that just a month before that, Lahori Ram had concluded his evidence. In any case, the delay in moving for amendment by itself can be no ground for disallowing it because in the interest of justice, the same can be allowed even at the appellate or revisional stage.

(3.) It was next urged by the learned counsel for Lahori Ram that the facts constituting the amendment were to the knowledge of Ram Parkash at the time of the filing of the written statement and he should have averred the same therein. The learned counsel on the opposite cited Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, 1969 AIR(SC) 1267, in which the plaintiff who was the Manager of a joint family, and was carrying on its business under a business name, and when objection was taken by the defendant that the firm being an unregistered firm was incompetent to sue, applied for the amendment of the plaint stating that he himself had intended to file and had in fact filed the action on behalf of the family in the business name. The trial Court allowed the amendment of the plaint and decreed the suit. In appeal, the High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court allowing the amendment, but their lordships of the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court restoring the order of the trial Court. It is thus clear that in Jai Ram Manohar Lal's case the true facts were to the knowledge of the plaintiff when he filed the suit but he was not debarred from seeking the amendment. Their lordships of the Supreme Court held that the rules of procedure are intended to be hand maid the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just, relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. Accordingly, I overrule the objection.