Balkar Singh vs Balwant Kaur and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

CM No. 7730-CII of 2011

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the documents mentioned in the application are part of record. Application is allowed as prayed for.

C.R. No. 1991 of 2011

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.2.2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner/tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short,''CPC'') for amendment of the written statement.

In brief, the eviction petition i.e. Rent Application No. 423 was filed on 17.8.1991 by the owner/landlord of Shop No. W1/58, Railway Road, Doraha Mandi,District Ludhiana, against the tenants including Balkar Singh (Petitioner), inter-alia, on the ground of nonpayment of rent and subletting of the demised premises.

The eviction petition was contested by the Petitioner by filing the written statement in which he categorically urged that Kuldip Singh (since deceased) was neither owner nor landlord of the shop in dispute. After 20 years of the trial when the case is still at the stage of evidence of the Respondent, an application for amendment of the written statement has been filed in order to take a plea that Kuldip Singh was neither owner nor the landlord of the shop in dispute. The Petitioner wanted to elaborate this fact by way of giving the facts in the written statement so as to lead evidence in that regard.

The learned Rent Controller, however, dismissed the application, inter-alia, on the ground that the case is already 20 years old and is required to be disposed of expeditiously.

Aggrieved against the said order, the present revision petition has been filed in which the Petitioner has raised the grievance that if the facts which are sought to be pleaded are not taken in the written statement then he would not be allowed to lead evidence in that regard. To my mind, the apprehension in the mind of the Petitioner is totally ill founded because the Petitioner is not required to plead his evidence in the written statement. All that was required to be pleaded is already taken in the written statement with regard to the status of the landlord which he has denied including his ownership and now he has to prove this fact by leading oral as well as documentary evidence. If the Petitioner has got some evidence in his possession which could prove the allegations made by him in the written statement that Kuldip Singh was neither owner of the demised premises nor his landlord, he can lead whatever evidence he likes, if he is in the process of leading his evidence, which could co-relate with the said pleadings and for that, he is not required to amend the written statement.

In view thereof, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.