B.R. Kawatara vs Balbir Singh and Another

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Petitioner-landlord filed an application for amendment of the eviction petition. It was stated in the application that essential ingredients of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, "that the son of the Petitioner is neither owning nor possessing any such non-residential building in the urban area of Chandigarh nor has vacated any such building without any sufficient cause or reason, after coming into operation of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, and made applicable to the said urban area", could not be pleaded due to inadvertence. Therefore, in para 8 of the petition, in the first line, where the words "that the Petitioner" occur, the following words are required to be added "and his only son". Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this bona fide error had crept in due to inadvertence, therefore, this amendment can be allowed, being just and proper.

Counsel for the Respondent has opposed the amendment on the ground that the application has been filed at a very belated stage.

This Court is of the view that sufferance of Respondent-tenant, due to delay, can be compensated in monetary terms by imposing costs upon the Petitioner as he was not diligent while drafting the petition and inadvertently bona fide mistake has occurred.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P-1) is set aside and the application for amendment of the eviction petition (Annexure P-2) is allowed. To the balance of equities, the Petitioner is saddled with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. On payment thereof, the proposed amendment shall be carried.