MOTI RAM Vs. SHANKAR KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 2.11.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kangra in Rent Petition No. 3/2007.

(2.) MATERIAL facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent No.1-landlord (hereinafter referred to as `landlord' for convenience sake) has sought eviction of the petitioner and proforma respondents (hereinafter referred to as `tenants' for convenience sake) on two grounds, firstly that the tenants are in arrears of rent and secondly, the landlord requires the shops in question bona fide for the purpose of building and rebuilding and such rebuilding cannot be carried out without the demised shops being vacated. The tenants filed reply to the petition. However, during the pendency of the petition, tenant Moti Ram filed an application, under order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment to the reply. The amendment was sought primarily on the ground that the State of Himachal Pradesh was the true owner of the land and shops and the mutation of proprietorship of the shops in question had been wrongly attested in favour of the landlord and no sanction had been accorded by the State of Himachal Pradesh for the construction and reconstruction. The application was contested by the landlord. The gist of the reply filed by the landlord was that the amendment was not necessary for deciding the real controversy between the landlord and tenants. It was also averred that the tenant always knew about the attestation of proprietorship of shops dated 24.8.1982. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application on 2.11.2010, hence, the present revision petition.

(3.) ACCORDING to him, the amendment to reply was necessary for deciding the real controversy between the landlord and tenants.