GIAN PARKASH SOOD Vs. BRIJ LAL TILAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present petition is to the order dated August 12, 2006 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Moga whereby application for amendment of the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner-landlord was dismissed.

(2.) THE eviction of the respondents was sought on the ground of non payment of rent and subletting. In the petition originally filed, it was stated that M/s Brij Lal Tilak Raj is a partnership firm to whom the shop and the room in dispute was rented out. According to the petitioner, the mistake occurred for the reasons that the rent note signed by the parties was written in Urdu language and the counsel for the petitioner was not conversant with the Urdu language. Further in the mortgage deed with regard to another shop, which was mortgaged by the petitioner to M/s Brij Lal Tilak Raj, Brij Lal has described himself as partner of the said firm whereas actually he was proprietor of this firm. The application was contested by the respondents with the plea that the story put up by the petitioner is false and after thought. The petitioner cannot be permitted to withdraw the admission already made by him in the application filed and even otherwise the rent note shows Brij Lal as the tenant and not the firm as claimed. The objection regarding delay in filing the application was also raised.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the mistake which occurred while drafting the petition is bona fide as in the rent note executed between the parties, Brij Lal was shown as proprietor of the firm whereas by mistake, it was mentioned in the petition as a partnership firm. The amendment sought to be made by the petitioner cannot in any manner be said to be an after thought as the same is based on the document executed between the parties in the form of rent note and the same is already on record. Even if objection of the respondents is considered regarding withdrawal of admission, there is reasonable explanation available for the same in the form of written document. As far as delay is concerned, the submission on that account is that firstly it is the petitioner, who is suffering and will suffer and secondly on that account respondent can very well be compensated with costs.