Sant Lal vs Mamta

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—Dismissal of an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of written statement filed by the tenant on 9.6.2012 by the Rent Controller in a petition u/s 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) brought by the landlady-respondent for his eviction, forms genesis of this revision petition by the petitioner-tenant.

It is claimed that observation of the Rent Controller that ground of personal necessity is to be evaluated as it exists on the date of filing of the rent petition and subsequent events are not to be looked into, is legally wrong.

Per contra, contention of the counsel for the respondent-landlady is that merely because she has got married at Pune ipso facto is not a fact which is conclusive of extinction of her personal necessity of the premises where she intends to open and run a dental clinic.

Detailed hearing has been provided to the counsel for the parties.

The rent petition preferred by the respondent-landlady, a Dental Surgeon seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of her personal necessity that she wants to open a dental clinic in the premises is pending adjudication before the Rent Controller since 26.3.2007. This is being resisted by the petitioner-tenant right from the very beginning. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner-tenant having come to know of marriage of the respondent-landlady at Pune with an engineer and about the fact of shifting of the respondent-landlady from Sohna to Pune resulted in filing of the application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the written statement.

Merely because the petition for eviction of the petitioner-tenant is at the stage of adducing rebuttal evidence by the landlady and for arguments was not a valid ground to reject the amendment sought by the tenant in the written statement to bring facts which came into existence during the pendency of the petition.

If facts constituting ground of personal necessity of a landlord have changed drastically so as to change the very existence and contours of personal necessity as a ground of eviction of the tenant, such facts are required to be brought on record. Such developments cannot be ignored.

Concedingly factum of marriage of landlady with an engineer of Pune and her moving from Sohna to that place located at a considerable distance, is not disputed. In these circumstances, merely because date of marriage was not mentioned in the application by the tenant would not constitute a valid ground for rejection of the application. No malafides to prolong the proceedings could be attributed to the tenant.

Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, the amendment sought for by the petitioner-tenant is not only necessary but is also essential for proper, effective and wholesome adjudication of the matter in controversy. Sequelly, setting aside the impugned order dated 9.6.2012 (Annexure P-3), amendment to the written statement sought by the petitioner-tenant vide application (Annexure P-2) is allowed with a direction that amended written statement is to be filed within 7 days from the receipt of copy of this order. Since the petition is very old, Rent Controller would decide the same within 3 months after giving two opportunities to the petitioner-tenant to complete his evidence within a span of one month and similarly two such opportunities to lead rebuttal evidence would be given to the respondent-landlady within another span of one month thereafter.