SURINDER MOHAN Vs. RAJ KUMAR MEHRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Revision Petition filed under Section 24(5) of the HP Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, lays challenge to order dated 23.8.2019, passed by the learned Rent Controller Shimla, whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, having been filed by the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant), seeking therein permission to amend his reply to the rent petition in CIS CNR No. HPSH120018302019, CIS case Type CMA, CIS CNR Regd. No. 921/2019 in Case No. 6102 of 2017/12, came to be dismissed.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-a-vis impugned order passed by the learned court below, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and as such, no interference of this Court is called for.

(3.) In nutshell, case of the tenant is that since factum with regard to extension of verandah by putting iron girders in the outer wall of the back portion of the building, came to his notice during the cross-examination conducted upon the petitioner as well as his witness namely Sh. B.C. Sharma, necessity has arisen to amend the written statement so that it may be proved that respondent-landlord possesses sufficient area for carrying out his business activities. Tenant further averred in the application that since with the extension of verandah, area of shop being run by the landlord has increased six times, tenant be permitted to amend the written statement specifically denying therein case of the landlord that he requires shop occupied by the tenant for extension of his business activities. However, having perused material available on record, especially statements made by land lord as well as his witness Sh. B.C. Sharma, this Court finds that at no point of time, admission, if any, came to be made on behalf of the landlord, himself or his witness that verandah on the back side of the shop of the landlord came to be extended recently. No doubt, statement made by the landlord suggests that on the back side of the shop being run by him, there exists verandah, but that cannot be a ground for the tenant to pray for amendment in the written statement. Had the landlord or his witness admitted that verandah has been extended recently, probably tenant was well within right to seek amendment in his reply, but as has been noticed herein above, there is nothing in the statement of landlord or his witness that verandah alleged to have been extended, has been extended after filing of the reply to the rent petition.