Raghbinder Singh vs Darshan Singh

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

Respondentlandlord had filed ejectment petition for eviction of the petitionertenant on the ground of personal necessity. The same was allowed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar. The appeal over the same filed by the tenant is pending in the court of Appellate Authority, Jalandhar. Before the appellate authority, the petitionertenant gave an application for amendment of the written statement. The said application was rejected and hence the petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging the order of rejection of amendment of the written statement by the appellate authority.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the amendment is necessary in order to arrive at the correct position of facts.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondentlandlord has produced a copy of the eviction petition, copy of the written statement and copy of the deposition of the petitioner before the Rent Controller. The same being the copies of the record of the trial court were taken on record. The amendments which the tenant seeks to make in the written statement are as under :

"(1) that the petitioner had rented out another nonresidential premises after the purchase to Satnam Singh who is running Bajwa Medical State there.

(2) that the respondentlandlord has not completed (complied ?) ingredients of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

(3) that the respondent owns and possesses another immovable property in the urban area of Jalandhar and has also vacated and parted with the possession of the same without any sufficient cause.

(4) that the respondent is pressing hard to increase the rent to Rs. 1000/ per month. The mother, brother and daughters of the respondent are permanently settled abroad and the respondent and his son also intend to settle abroad and do not want to start any business and that Girbinder Singh son of the petitioner is not unemployed.

So far as first point is concerned, it is already taken up in the written statement wherein it is mentioned that the respondentlandlord has let out the adjoining shop on 24.4.1987.

Regarding amendments mentioned at points No. 2 and 3 above, the same seem to be vague as they do not convey any meaning.

The amendment at point No. 4 is also vague one. It cannot be presumed that if other relatives of the respondent are settle abroad, the son of the respondent shall also settled abroad and that it is wrong that the respondent wants to establish his son by opening the business of electricals in the demised shop.

In view of the above reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the appellate authority.

In the result, this revision petition is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed.