INDER MAL Vs. AJESH YADAV AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved against the order dated 16.9.2017, whereby the Rent Controller has allowed the application filed by respondent No.1/landlord under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code"), the instant revision has been filed by the petitioner/tenant.

(2.) In brief, facts are that a petition under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 came to be filed seeking eviction of the respondents/tenants from a shop situated at Sarai Balbhadar near New Subzi Mandi, Katla Bazar Road, Rewari. In the ejectment petition, the grounds of personal necessity set up was described as requiring the shop to set up business for his son. In para 4 (ii) of the eviction petition, it was mentioned as under:-

(3.) It was further mentioned that the petitioner has no other shop or commercial place in the market of Rewari Town/Urban Area to settle his son nor has he ever remained in possession of any other shop in Rewari Town. Thereafter, an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be filed stating therein that inadvertently, it had been mentioned by the petitioner/landlord that his son Himanshu Yadav has completed his education of BBA, whereas, in fact, there was a typographical mistake which crept in and it should have been mentioned that Himanshu Yadav is near completion of his education of BBA. It is further argued that the amendment sought was clarificatory in nature and would not be inconsistent with the pleadings already set out. It was also argued that no prejudice would be caused to either party and would serve the purpose of law and justice.