AMIT KUMAR Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the revision petition that has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the order dtd. 4/10/2017 vide which the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner stands declined.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed an eviction petition against the petitioner under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of the tenant/petitioner on the grounds of non-payment of rent, grounds of personal necessity of her son and for sub letting the shop by the petitioner to respondent No. 2. The petition was contested by way of filing the reply to the eviction petition and thereafter, the case was adjourned to 16/9/2014 for filing of the replication and framing of issues.

(3.) However, since the replication was not filed, the learned Rent Controller, Narnaul framed issues and adjourned the matter for evidence. During the pendency of the proceedings, the landlady sought permission to file replication which application was allowed and ultimately challenged by the tenant before this High Court by filing CR No. 3211 of 2016 and the same was dismissed by an order dtd. 25/5/2016. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the written statement and insert para No. 3 therein. In the application it was contended that it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that the landlady had sought ejectment of one Naresh Kumar from the adjoining shop on similar grounds that is the ground of personal necessity of her grandson Pankaj, but the same was withdrawn on her statement that she did not want to pursue the petition.