PRINCE SALES CORPORATION Vs. PARTAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against the order of the appellate authority declining prayer for the amendment of written statement.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, respondents -landlord filed a petition Under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short 'the Act') for ejectment of the petitioner -tenant from the shop situate in New Cycle Market Gill Road, Ludhiana, on the ground of non -payment of rent as well as of sub -letting.

(3.) FEELING dissatisfied, the present revision petitioner filed an appeal and during the pendency of the appeal filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the written statement which has been declined by the Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appellate authority acted illegally and improperly in declining the petitioner's application for amendment in the written statement. By means of the amendment sought, the petitioner intended to incorporate in the written statement that all the partners of the firm M/s Prince Sales Corporation have not been impleaded as a party and so in the absence of all the partners, the petition is not maintainable; and secondly, the property in dispute was taken on rent by M/s Prince Industrial Corporation which consisted of Kailash Chand, Mohan Lal and Kewal alias Kanwal Kumar as its partners. Out of the three partners, Kamal Kumar still continues to be in possession in his own right as a tenant and thus no question of sub -letting arises. The observation of the Court that the amendment if allowed would change the complexion of the original plea or otherwise it is belated is hardly a ground to decline the amendment as prayed for. Otherwise too, the Courts are liberal in permitting the parties to amend their pleadings and for such a lapse the other party can be well compensated with costs. Reference has also been made to the judicial pronouncements which will be briefly discussed later on.