PANKAJ NARANG Vs. DHARAMPAL AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition by the petitioner-tenant is to the order dated 29.07.2016, passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar whereby, the application for amendment of the written statement under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has been declined. The reasoning given by the Rent Controller in the impugned order is that the respondent had tendered the rent for the tenanted premises and, therefore, has admitted the relationship of landlord-tenant. Therefore, the plea taken that the petition was not maintainable and bad for non-joinder of parties was an effort to wriggle out of an earlier admission. It was further held that even if the wife was a co-owner, the landlord could always file petition for eviction of property and it was not mandatory that all the co-owners should join the proceedings. It was held that the proposed amendment regarding non-joining of necessary parties was not essential for the adjudication of the case and merely on account of the fact that counsel had been changed, would not be a ground for allowing the application.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case was at an initial stage when the application was filed and issues had also not been framed the Rent Controller was in error in refusing the application for amendment. It is submitted that the amendment sought as such was which would help the Court to adjudicate upon the controversy in question effectively and settle all the disputes inter se the parties and, thus, there has been irregularity and illegality while passing the order, which is not justifiable.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has justified the order and submitted that it was always open to the tenant as such to have taken these grounds at the initial stage.