RAM KUMAR Vs. KAMLESH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Rent Controller dated 13.9.2005, whereby the landlord was permitted to amend the plaint so as to correct the description of the tenanted premised.

(2.) The land lord Surinder Kumar sought ejectment of the tenant being specific landlord, under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The tenanted premises was described in the site plan in red colour as consisting of one room. The tenant filed written statement and took a stand in the written statement that he is in occupation of two rooms and a kitchen as shown yellow in the site plan. Though the landlord adduced the evidence to prove that tenanted premises are the one which are shown red in the site plan, but by virtue of amendment sought on 29.8.2005, it was pointed out that due to inadvertence the premises could not be described correctly and landlord wants to rectify the mistake. It is pointed out that respondent has also filed site plan Exhibit R-4 and, therefore, the petitioner be permitted to amend the plaint. The said application has been allowed by the learned Rent Controller.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has sought ejectment as a specific landlord. Such right can be availed by the landlord only within one year of his retirement. Since the petitioner retired on 31.3.1996, therefore, the amendment sought by the petitioner vide application dated 29.8.2005 is beyond the period of limitation during which the land lord was entitled to seek eviction in summary manner. It was also pointed out that the landlord insisted that the tenanted premises as shown red in the site plan not only in the plaint, but in the rejoinder as well in evidence. Therefore, the amendment sought is malafide and against the evidence already led by the landlord. It is further argued that the amendment allowed at the stage in fact is to avoid perjury and also lead to de-novo trial.