Jai Ram vs Shanti Narain Anand

V.K. Jhanji, J.—An ejectment application was filed by the Petitioner for the ejectment of the Respondent from the shop in dispute on certain grounds. During the pendency of the petition, an application was filed for amendment of the plaint so as to take up a plea that during the pendency of the ejectment application, Respondent has sub let a shop to one Subhash Chand. The said application was declined vide impugned order by the learned Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller found that application has not been made bona-fide and amendment is not necessary for complete and proper adjudication of the case.

After hearing the learned Counsel, I find that this revision petition must succeed. It is the case of the landlord that during the pendency of the ejectment application, Respondent has sub-let the premises to one Subhash Chand and if this is so, then the learned Rent Controller ought to have allowed amendment of the application filed by the landlord. No prejudice is, going to be caused to the tenant in case the Petitioner is allowed to amend his ejectment application.

In view of this matter I allow the revision petition and set aside the order did (sic)-1990 with no order as to costs. The Petitioner shall be entitled to amend his plaint The learned Rent Controller shall decide the ejectment application on merits after giving an opportunity to the tenant and also to Subhash Chand who is sdught to be impleaded as a sub-tenant to contest the ground of subletting. However, it is made clear that the parties shall not be allowed to lead any other evidence except on the ground of subletting because the learned Rent Controller has observed that the evidence of the parties has already been completed on other issues.