UPENDRA VATSYAYAN Vs. ROBIN COLD DRINKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 28.4.2008 passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide which he dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-landlord under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the ejectment application.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision are that the petitioner filed ejectment application against the respondents tenants for their ejectment from the shop in dispute forming portion of property bearing Unit No. 432/98 situated at Noorwala Road, Ludhiana, on the ground on non- payment of rent. During the pendency of that ejectment application, he filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment thereof so as to add the following Para:-

(3.) IT has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the ejectment application was filed only on the ground of non-payment of rent as ground of personal necessity was not available to the petitioner at that time. Subsequent events took place which necessitated the amendment of the ejectment application so as to take up that ground. The multiplicity of proceedings is to be avoided and law of amendment requires that such a ground, which has arisen subsequently be allowed to be taken up by way of amendment. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of amended Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as the provisions of CPC are not applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Controller. He prayed that revision be accepted and application for amendment be allowed. On the other hand, it was contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the application filed by the petitioner is mala fide one as the same was filed after four years of the filing of the ejectment application itself and after the petitioner failed to produce any evidence in support of the ground originally taken up by him in that application. It cannot be said that any such event has occurred subsequently which has necessitated the amendment of pleadings so as to take up the ground of personal necessity. Once the trial has commenced, the petitioner has no right to amend his pleadings as he has failed to prove that in spite of the exercise of due diligence, he failed to move that amendment application before the commencement of the trial.