SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. DHARAMPAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein seeks to challenge the order dated 28.09.2017 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby the second application for amendment of the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord, has been allowed. By virtue of the said amendment, mandatory ingredients, which are necessary to be pleaded under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(b) & (c) of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as extended to Chandigarh were sought to be incorporated in the eviction petition filed.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the respondent/ landlord (henceforth called the respondent), claiming himself to be the owner of Booth No. 62, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh, filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner/ tenant (henceforth called the petitioner) from the demised premises. However as the respondent failed to plead the necessary ingredients as required under clauses (b) & (c) of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act, the petitioner contested the aforesaid petition and in the written statement filed, raised an objection that the basic ingredients of Section 13 of the Act have not been fulfilled. Thereafter issues were framed, evidence was led and when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, the respondent filed the first application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the eviction petition. The said application was allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 06.08.2016, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil Revision No. 5797 of 2016. The Civil Revision was decided on 02.05.2017 whereby the order dated 06.08.2016 passed by the Rent Controller was set aside and liberty was also granted to the respondent to file appropriate application before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller was directed to decide the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC afresh keeping in view the material available on the record. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent filed second application seeking amendment of para 10 of the Eviction Petition. The Rent Controller vide order dated 28.09.2017 allowed the second amendment application. Aggrieved against the said order, the instant revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. A.S. Narang, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the Rent Controller by allowing the amendment has permitted the respondent to cover up the lacunas in the case, as certain admissions that have been made during the cross-examination are now sought to be withdrawn. It is contended that in the original para 10 of the rent petition, which is now sought to be amended, it had been pleaded that the premises in question were required by him / his brothers / his family members, however, during cross-examination it has come on record that his brothers are in occupation of commercial property in Sector 17, Chandigarh which fact was well within his knowledge. It is also argued that the Rent Controller despite taking note of the fact that amendment could only be allowed if the applicant was able to prove that despite due diligence certain facts were not in his knowledge, no finding has been given thereon. It is further contended that the lacunas are sought to be covered by way of amendment after cross-examination had commenced and the Rent Controller had closed rebuttal evidence of the landlord and by this amendment sought the entire case would be reopened.