Chander Mohan vs Brij Mohan

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—The respondents has filed a petition against the petitioner for eviction before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh. One of the Grounds is of bona fide personal requirement. Petitioner had given an application for amending the written statement because he wanted to plead that he came to know that because of the compromise order passed against the tenant regarding two rooms on the first floor of the building, the tenant was to vacate the premises in September 1999. This application was dismissed by the Rent Controller and hence this revision petition.

In reply to the application for amendment, the fact is admitted by the respondent and the learned counsel for the respondent got recorded his statement admitting the factum of vacation of two rooms on the first floor in view of the compromise decree. The learned Rent Controller has held that because of the admission, the prayer for seeking amendment in the written statement has become infructuous. It will be proper to quote the exact words in the impugned order:

"Heard. The submissions of both the parties considered. By way of moving the present application, the respondents sought to amend the written statement for the subsequent events which have taken place on account of compromise decree vide which the tenant on the first floor is to vacate the two rooms in the month of September, 1999. This fact is admitted in the reply and the learned counsel for the petitioner Sh. Mukesh Mittal has got recorded his statement today itself admitting the factum of vacation of two rooms on the first floor in view of the compromise decree. Once a fact is admitted in the reply and the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner is also there on the file to this effect, I am of the considered opinion that this application seeking the amendment of the written statement has become infructuous."

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find nothing wrong in the impugned order. Whatever the petitioner wanted to add in his written statement to challenge the prayer of bona fide requirement, the same has been admitted by the respondent landlord and once this is the position, it will be futile to carry out the exercise for amendment in the written statement, which will lead to further delay in the proceedings because the party will get a right to lead additional evidence. Learned Rent Controller has, therefore, correctly held that because of the admission, the application for amendment has become infructuous.

At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that one more contention has been taken in the proposed amendment i.e. the entire petition filed against the tenant of the second floor has been decided and dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 10.5.1999 by holding that the respondent does not require the premises for his own use and occupation. This also will not necessitate the amendment in the written statement. The purpose can be served by producing a copy of the order of the Rent Controller dated 10.5.1999.

In view of the above reasons, this revision petition is without merit and is dismissed.