J S BUDH Vs. AMRIK KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.4.1997 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar whereby the application filed by the petitioner-landlord for amendment of the ejectment petition has been dismissed. Ejectment of the tenant-respondent is sought on the ground of non-payment of rent. It is alleged in the petition that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.1.1994 till the filing of the ejectment petition. The case is still, at the initial stage and the tenant has yet to file his written statement. However, after being served the tenant tendered in court the arrears of rent @ Rs. 2100/- per month though he contends that the agreed rent is at a lower rate. After the tender was made, the petitioner-landlord moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission of the court to amend the petition so as to plead that the tenant-respondent was in arrears w.e.f. 1.1.1991 and not from 1.1.1994 as was originally pleaded. It is stated that a typographical error had crept in and that the landlord should be allowed to amend the petition. Notice of this application was issued to the tenant who opposed the same and contended that there was no typographical error as the date had been written in the original petition by the landlord in his own hand by making a correction therein. After hearing the counsel for the parties the trial court dismissed the application for amendment observing that what has not been claimed by the landlord must be presumed to have been paid by the tenant. It is against his order of the trial court that the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the amendment sought by the petitioner should be allowed. It is well settled that courts are liberal in allowing amendment of pleadings and that an amendment may be allowed if it can be made without causing injustice to the other side. The ground on which the ejectment is sought is non-payment of rent and if the amendment is allowed the nature of the relief claimed would not change. After all, the landlord only wants to plead that the tenant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.1991 instead of 1.1.1994. What is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the tenant has already tendered the rent for the period mentioned in the ejectment application and, therefore, he would be prejudiced if the amendment is allowed. There is no merit in this contention. The tenant has either paid the rent w.e.f. 1.1.1991 or he has not. If he has then he need not tender any further amount and take the plea that the rent already stands paid and can prove the same in the course of evidence. In case the rent has not been paid he would still have an opportunity to tender the same because the first date of hearing has yet to come. As already observed, the tenant has not filed his written statement so far and it will, therefore, be open to the 'tenant to tender the balance amount if any at any time before the issues are framed.

(3.) In the result, the revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 17.4.1997 set aside and the application for amendment filed by the petitioner allowed. Parties through their counsel have been directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.9.1997.