KANTA BHAGAT Vs. ASHOK SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration, therefore, these petitions are taken-up together for consideration and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) Both these petitions are directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, whereby the applications filed by both the parties for amendment have been dismissed. As regards the landlord, who is petitioner in C.R. No.184/2016, the amendment sought for by her was limited to the extent that in place of the words "business", she had sought incorporation and substitution of the words "practice". As regards the tenant, who is petitioner in CMPMO No.441/2016, he had sought amendment to the effect that he may be permitted to question the maintainability of the eviction petition, as the same had been filed by the landlord within a period of five years from the date of acquiring ownership of the demised premises and, therefore, such eviction petition was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 14(6) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short the 'Act'). Learned Rent Controller dismissed the application vide separate order dated 01.10.2016 by invoking proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 and both the applications were held to be not maintainable as having been filed after the commencement of the trial that too after one of the witness of the landlord having already been examined.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.