M/S SHOE PALACE Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 11.07.2016 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Rent Controller, SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereby the petitioners-tenants application for amendment to the written statement has been dismissed.

(2.) The reasoning given in the said order is that the subsequent event has not been proved and even if taken on record, on the face of it, it would not be a relevant issue for determining the question in controversy before the Rent Controller. The agreement which was sought to be brought on record dated 22.09.1995 did not bear the signatures of landlords and thus the said agreement was lacked authenticity. In an earlier set of litigation, whereby the witnesses were sought to be recalled, this Court had adversely commented upon the said event on 10.03.2016. Resultantly, it was held that the subsequent event which was sought to be created was not existing as such and even if the proposed amendment was taken, on the face of it, the same was not relevant.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has accordingly relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in 'Joginder Pal and another Vs. Krishan Bala' 2007 (1) PLR 530, 'Ram Kumar Barnwal Vs. Ram Lakhan' 2007(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 657 : 2007(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 279 : 2007 (5) SCC 660, 'Ashok Kumar Vs. Mohinder Pal Singh and another' 2008 (1) RCR 772, 'Surjit Kaur and others Vs. Shanti Devi' 2011 (1) RCR (Civil) 131 and Mrs. Surinder Kaur Bakshi Vs. M/s Chopra Glass House and others' 2013(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 322 : 2013(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 160 : 2013 (3) PLR 142 to submit that the agreement dated 22.09.2015 whereby the respondent-landlord had agreed to sell the property in question was a subsequent event and, therefore, the amendment of the written statement should be allowed. He submitted that the bona fide requirement as such was one of the grounds for ejectment and the same was doubted in view of the fact that the landlord wanted to sell the property and, therefore, the factum of agreement was relevant.