ANAND KUTHIALA Vs. CHIRRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RECORD has been received which I have carefully perused. The revision petitioners had filed an eviction petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 on two grounds. The first ground related to the arrears of rent and the second about re-building of the rented premises. Para-18 of the eviction petition relating to the grounds on which the eviction of the respondents was sought clearly averred that the respondents had not paid rent of the premises @ Rs.20 per month since November 1993. This averment was contained in Clause (i) of Para-18(a) of the eviction petition. In Clause (ii) of Para-18(a) it was averred by the revision petitioners that the building was very old and had outlived its age etc. etc. and thus required re-building etc. etc. In the reply filed by the respondents before the Rent Controller insofar as the aforesaid two grounds contained in Para-18(a) of the eviction petition are concerned, they simply offered "no comments". The learned Rent Controller on the assumption that the respondents had not contested the grounds of eviction because they had offered "no comments" with respect thereto, without framing any issue allowed the eviction petition vide her judgment and order dated 21.1.2006 only on the ground of the aforesaid "admission" made by the respondents. This eviction order was challenged by the respondents before the learned appellate Authority (Additional District Judge) Shimla in Rent Appeal No.12- S/13(b) of 2006. Vide the impugned judgment dated 27th September, 2006 the learned appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondents on the main ground, rather the only ground that before the disposal of the eviction petition on 21.1.2006 the respondents had filed an application on 20.1.2006 for amendment of the reply in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. because respondents in the amendment application had contended that the expression "no comments" used by them with respect to Para-18 of the eviction petition was a typing mistake and that actually the respondents wanted to contest Para-18 of the eviction petition by offering a detailed reply with respect to the grounds of eviction contained in Clauses (i) and (ii) of Para-18(a) of the eviction petition. The learned appellate Authority accordingly vide the aforesaid impugned judgment allowed the amendment application of the respondents and in the ultimate analysis passed a final order sending the case back to the learned Rent Controller with directions to her for fresh trial and decision in accordance with law. It is against this judgment that the petitioners / landlords have filed this revision petition under Section 24(5) of the 1987 Act.

(2.) A perusal of the record does show that on 20.1.2006 the respondents had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the reply with respect to the aforesaid grounds of eviction contained in Clauses (i) and (ii) of Para-18(a) of the eviction petition. Without inviting any reply to the said amendment application from the petitioners, the learned Rent Controller (4) Shimla by passing an order on 21.1.2006 rejected the said application. The order dated 21.1.2006 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference. It reads thus:-

(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons, I find that this petition has no merit and it is dismissed in limine. Record be sent back.