ASHWANI KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. SHANTI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer of the petitioner for amendment of his rent petition is declined. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

(2.) THE petitioner -landlord has purchased a property bearing No. 2272/1, Bagh Rama Nand, Amritsar, from Kharaiti Ram vide sale deed dated 24.1.1994. Respondent was a tenant under said Kharaiti Ram on the part of ground floor of the property. On 30.11.1996, the petitioner -landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant, claiming that he has taken on rent two rooms, kitchen and bathroom from Kharaiti Ram. The petitioner has sought ejectment on the ground that the premises are needed for use and occupation by him and his family members. Other grounds are also raised. This ejectment application is pending since the year 1996. The petitioner has now moved an application, seeking amendment, saying that the same is needed to avoid any complication and multiplicity of the proceedings. By this amendment, the petitioner wants to add words "alongwith two Mainis" in Para 1 of the ejectment application where the tenanted premises is described. It is specifically pleaded that the petitioner is not to lead any further evidence in this case. This application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by v the trial Court stating that the amendment would cause prejudice to the respondent.

(3.) TO justify his act in seeking this amendment, the counsel would refer to the reply filed by the respondent to the application for ejectment wherein the stand taken by the respondent is that he took two rooms at the backside, kitchen, verandah, one front room, latrine, bathroom, deori, terrace, one miani on the room of the backside, one miani on the kitchen on 31.3.1982 by a rent note dated 31.3.1982. It is on this premise, he says that the petitioner would not be able to get any effective relief even if the ejectment of the respondent is ordered. Though the earlier stance of the petitioner is that the respondent had forcibly occupied two mianis and the respondent had claimed that this portion was also given on rent to him by the previous owner. The petitioner says that in order to cut short the controversy, he has prayed for amendment of the description of the premise so that ejectment, if ordered, could relate to all the property in occupation of the respondent.