Bishan Pal Sood vs Walaiti Ram

J.Y. Gupta, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority whereby the amendment of the written statement has been allowed in appeal.

Eviction order was passed against the tenant by the Rent Controller on September 24, 1986, on the ground that the premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Appeal was filed on November 13, 1986, whereas the application seeking amendment of the written statement was filed much later. The tenant wanted to take, a preliminary objection in his written statement that the landlord had filed an ejectment application on similar grounds and that the same was got dismissed as withdrawn on September 7, 1983. No permission to file a fresh petition was taken and as such, the instant petition was completely barred and was not maintainable. According to the tenant, the amendment was necessary for the complete and effective decision of the case. That application was resisted by the landlord on the ground that the amendment sought for was highly belated and that the application had been filed mala fide in order to delay and to prolong the case. Though the appeal was filed on November 13, 1986, the application for amendment was filed on July, 28, 1988. However, the learned Appellate Authority relying upon the judgment of this Court in Mehtab Singh v. Tilak Raj Arora (1988) 89 P. L. R. 269, allowed the amendment in the written statement at the appellate stage.

At the time of the motion hearing it was submitted on behalf of the landlord-Petitioner that in the earlier ejectment application, the ground that the premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation was not taken. No doubt, the said application was dismissed as withdrawn but the instant petition was not barred either under Order XXIII Rule 1 or Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Harnam Singh v. Surjit Singh (1984) 86 P. L. R. 104.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find merit in the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner.

Firstly, there was no occasion for allowing the amendment sought for in the written statement simply on the ground that during the pendency of the appeal a judgment relevant to the point canvassed in the application had come in The application for amendment was moved alter more than two years of the filling of the appeal and, therefore, was a belated one. Moreover, Mehtab Singh''s case (supra), has no applicability to the facts of the present case. In the earlier ejectment application no such ground was taken and, therefore, the landlord was not debarred from claiming the ejectment of the tenant on a ground which was not taken earlier and was not finally decided. The only bar is as provided u/s 14 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Thus, the whole approach of the Appellate Authority in this behalf was wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. It was a clear case in which the application for amendment of the written statement was filed to delay the proceedings. The landlord is claiming the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The ejectment application was filed on October 28, 1983 and the ejectment order was passed on September 24, 1986. It may be observed that the amendment of the pleadings at the appellate stage is not to be allowed as a-matter of course. It is only after a very strong case is made out to show why a plea which was available, could not be taken up earlier, should be allowed to be taken up at the appellate stage. Simply because some judgment relevant to the plea has been delivered by the Court, it does not entitle a party to claim amendment of the pleadings.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal be decided on merits in accordance with law. The parties have been directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on January 31, 1989. The appeal be disposed of expeditiously within three months as the ground taken is that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.