MUNESHWAR DASS Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Muneshwar Dass, landlord, against the order of the Rent Controller, Ballabgarh, dated October 31, 1977 disallowing his application for amendment of the ejectment petition.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the petitioner filed an application for ejectment against the respondent under Haryana Act No. 11 of 73 on the ground that he required the premises for his own use and occupation. During the pendency of the petition, he filed an application for amendment of the petition stating that he may be allowed to take the plea that he was not occupying any other building in that urban area. The Rent Controller disallowed the amendment and also dismissed the petition for ejectment holding that the petitioner did not require the building for his own use and occupation. He went up in appeal before the appellate authority which affirmed the judgment of the Rent Controller and dismissed the same. He then filed a revision petition before the revisional authority. The Financial Commissioner, who was then the revisional authority, accepted the revision and remanded the case to the Rent Controller holding that the petitioner be allowed to incorporate the amendment as had been prayed by him. The petition after the remand order, came up for hearing before the Rent Controller. The petitioner again moved an application for amendment before him to the effect that according to the Full Bench Judgment in Banke Ram v. Smt. Sarasti Devi, 1977 AIR(P&H) 158, it was necessary that all the ingredients given in Section 13(3)(a)(i) should be incorporated in a petition for ejectment on the ground of personal necessity. He consequently prayed that he may be allowed to amend the petition and incorporate therein the third ingredient provided in the aforesaid section, namely, that he had not vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. The application was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide impugned order. The petitioner has come up in revision against the said order to this Court.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment can be allowed by the court at any stage. He further urges that in view of the Full Bench decision of the Court in Banke Ram's case it became necessary for the petitioner to amend the petition. According to him, in the circumstances, the petition for amendment should not have been rejected by the Rent Controller. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel. Similar amendments have been allowed by this court even at the time of hearing the revision petition. No prejudice will be caused to the respondent if the amendment is allowed.