Manjit Singh Nayyar vs Gurdev Singh

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—A petition for eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises located in Phase-IX, SAS Nagar, Mohali, was filed by the landlord, respondent herein. Soon thereafter, it was discovered by the landlord that title of the eviction petition had wrongly been mentioned. Instead of mentioning that it was a petition for eviction of the tenant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, it had wrongly been mentioned to be a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. Similar mistake was made in the paragraph of the petition regarding cause of action. Before the issues were framed, an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. was made by the respondent-landlord for seeking amendment of the petition to rectify the clerical mistake without bringing any change in the nature of the petition. Allowing the said application for amendment vide impugned order of 24.7.2014, amended petition was taken on record. This order is under challenge from the side of the tenant claiming that there is basic change in the petition and entire ambit and scope of the petition has got changed.

This plea of the tenant is mis-founded. Relevant observations of the Rent Controller in the impugned order are to the following effect:

"3. The amendment sought for by the petitioner is a clerical mistake made by the petitioner in the petition. The same will neither change the nature of the suit, nor will substitute one cause of action with the other. Even issues in the present case have not been framed, so, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent. As such, the present application stands allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500/- to be paid in DLSA."

Merely because the statute applicable had wrongly been mentioned at the relevant places in the petition, whereas all the averments continue to be the same, necessary correction being of clerical mistake, has been allowed because it presumably had occurred at the ministerial level in the office of the counsel for the landlord. When there is neither change in the nature nor in the tone and temperament of the eviction petition, this petition is devoid of any merit and is, thus, dismissed.