TARSEM SINGH Vs. BAKSHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein seeks to challenge by way of filing civil revision petition on the Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 01.08.2019 whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the petition has been allowed.

(2.) In brief the facts are that the respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act seeking ejectment of the petitioner herein from the shop situated at Hoshiarpur Road, Kaki Pind, Dakoha, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar. In paragraph 3 of the ejectment petition, it was stated that Lehmbar Singh had inducted Swaran Singh, father of the petitioner herein as tenant in the shop in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-. Subsequent to the said petition, a written statement had been filed denying the relationship of tenant and landlord between the petitioner and the respondents. Thereafter an application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed by the land-lady seeking to amend the petition by replacing Para 3 in which she sought to rely upon a rent agreement dated 30.12.1981 which had been entered into between Swaran Singh father of the petitioner and the grand-father of the husband of the land-lady. The amendment was opposed by the petitioner herein which was subsequently allowed by the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner tenant herein would contend that the document as sought to be relied upon has been filed at a belated stage and that the amendment would change the very nature of the petition filed by the respondent. It is alleged that the amendment would set up a new case whereby in the original application the case of the respondent-landlady was that the shop in question had been given on rent by her husband Lehmbar Singh to the father of the petitioner namely Swaran Singh but now she has sought to rely upon a rent agreement purportedly issued in the year 1981. It is argued that by allowing an application under Order 6 Rule 17, the Court has failed to appreciate the proviso added to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which categorically states that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced.