Darshan Kumar vs Jagdish Lal Sehgal

V.K. Jhanji, J.—In this application, prayer made is to set down the revision petition for hearing at an early date. On notice of the application, counsel for the parties have stated that they have no objection if the revision petition is heard and disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, on request of the counsel the revision petition is taken on Board.

Counsel heard on merits.

The revision petition is directed against the order of the appellate Authority whereby application of petitioner to amend the eviction application has been dismissed. Application for amendment has been dismissed solely on the ground that amendment, if allowed, would reopen the entire case par-taking the character of fresh trial as the petitioner would ask for an opportunity to lead evidence.

In my view, in the facts and circumstances of this case the order of the appellate Authority is not sustainable. Petitioner filed eviction application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, for eviction of the respondent. The eviction application, on contest has been allowed and the Rent Controller has directed the respondent to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner. Appeal against the eviction order had been filed by respondent, Jagdish Lal. When the case was fixed for arguments, petitioner discovered that in the eviction application, boundaries of the premises have been wrongly described. In order to rectify the mistake, prayer for amendment of eviction application was made by way of an application and the said application has been dismissed. So far as the premises in dispute are concerned, there is no dispute in regard to its identity. The respondents have not claimed that there arc two different properties or property under their possession is different from the property owned by the petitioner. By way of amendment, petitioner is only wanting to correct the boundaries whereby ''East'' was shown as ''North'' and ''West'' was shown as ''South''. Similarly, North and South were shown as East and West. Municipal number of the premises instead of being shown as B.VI.109(New), BV-1316(old) situated at Kucha No. 2, Madhopuri, Ludhiana, has wrongly been shown as B.XI-109(New), BV-1316(old). Amendment sought is innocuous and no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents as they would also be entitled to file written statement to the amended plea.

In the result, the revision petition stands allowed and the order under revision set aside. Appellate Authority shall allow the petitioner to amend the written statement on payment of Rs. 1,000/- as costs.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the appellate Authority on 10.6.1997.