LAWS(P&H)-2008-2-375

MALOOK SINGH Vs. PRITHIPAL SINGH

Decided On February 05, 2008
MALOOK SINGH Appellant
V/S
PRITHIPAL SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer of the petitioner seeking amendment of his ejectment petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 has been declined. The petitioner-landlord filed an application for ejectment of the respondent from a shop in dispute, inter-alia, on the ground that he is in arrears of rent and that shop is needed for use by the petitioner. The ejectment petition is being contested by the respondent-tenant. During the pendency of these proceedings, another shop adjacent to the shop in dispute and in occupation of another tenant Balwinder Singh has been vacated by him. The possession of the shop has been delivered to the petitioner-landlord in the year 2004. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application seeking amendment of his ejectment petition by including the averment that the possession of other shop under the tenancy of Balwinder Singh has been voluntarily surrendered to the petitioner. The said shop is very small and the petitioner would need this ship as well as the shop under tenancy of the respondent for running the business for his son. This amendment has been resisted by the respondent. One of the issue on which the present application is prosecuted is the bona fide need of the demised premises for use by the petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would attempt to convey that new case is being set up by the petitioner. It is stated that need by the petitioner for running business for his son has not been so pleaded in the ejectment application and as such the petitioner cannot now be permitted to set up a new case altogether. To rebut this, the counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the previous pleadings which are re-produced in the order itself. It is seen that the petitioner has pleaded that he is unemployed and wants to start his own business of stationary and books as well as general store. It is specifically pleaded that the applicant is having a son, namely, Amarbeer Singh, who is un-employed and whom the petitioner wants to settle. It cannot, thus, be said that this ground is now being raised for the first time by way of amendment.

(3.) Amendment of a pleading is well regulated by various authoritative judicial pronouncements of different courts including the Supreme Court. In Baldev Singh & Ors. v. Manohar Singh & Anr., 2006 3 RCR(Civ) 844it is observed that court should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of the pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. Reference can also be made to Ma. Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung, 1922 AIR(PC) 249., where it is observed as under:-