MAMTA Vs. ANIL KUMAR MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 23.08.2016 passed by the Rent Controller, Yamuna Nagar, whereby, the application for amendment of the petition under Section 13 of the Haryna Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1973 (for short '1973 Act') preferred by the respondent-landlord, has been allowed permitting the addition of the ground for eviction on personal necessity of the wife for running a boutique and that too because of his retirement.

(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the eviction petition was filed by the respondent-landlord and respondent had shown incorrectly service upon the petitioner because of which the trial Court proceeded ex parte and thereafter, the eviction order was also passed ex parte. On an application moved by the petitioner, the ex parte order has been set aside and the case has been ordered to be taken up on merits. He contends that after such a long time when the petition was pending no such ground was taken. It is only, at this stage, that additional ground has been sought to be taken by the respondent projecting the personal necessity and that too of his wife. He contends that the same, at this belated stage, cannot be allowed and the Rent Controller has wrongly allowed the application for amendment of the petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance, have gone through the impugned order.