Satya Devi and Others vs K.K. Yadav

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This revision petition has been preferred by the landladies against the order of the appellate Authority, whereby the appeal of the tenants was allowed and the ejectment petition was remanded to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

Landladies (petitioners herein) fileld an ejectment petition claiming ejectment of the tenant (respondent herein) from the 1st and 2nd floor of building No. 4962/2 (I2 �"x 30 1/4") consisting of a chaubara kitchen, bathroom, latrine, sehan, joint stair-case on 1st floor and a barsati (room) on the top floor situated in Saddar Bazar, Bhatinda. The ejectment was claimed on the ground of personal necessity.

The Rent Controller after finding that the petitioners need the premises in dispute for personal use, ordered the ejectment of the respondent. The respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate Authority.

During the pendency of the appeal the respondent filed an application for amendment of the written Statement to which reply was filed by the petitioners on 21-4-1991. Before the application for amendment of the written-statements of the tenant could be considered, the petitioners also filed an application for amendment of the plaint. In this application, it was stated that instead of showing the area to be 12 � ''x 30 � '' it was wrongly shown to be 12 � "x 30 � ". It was also stated that the proposed amendment occurred due to typographical mistake and to prejudice is going to be caused to be the respondent if the amendment is allowed. Though the tenant filed a reply to this application, yet at the time of consideration of the application, counsel for the respondent-tenant made a statement that he has no objection if the application is allowed. It view of the statement made by the counsel for the respondent, the application for amendment, of the plaint was allowed by the appellate authority. The appellate Authority after allowing this amendment, allowed the respondent-tenant to file an amended written statement and also permitted him to to take any other additional plea which was not taken by him before the Rent Controller. The appeal of the respondent was thus allowed and the ejectment petition was remanded to the Rent Controller for decision afresh. The order is being challenged by the petitioners in the present revision petition.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to succeed. Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (briefly ''the Act''), provides that if the Appellate Authority is dis-satisfied with the trial of the ejectment petition under the Act, it can make further enquiries, as it thinks fit, either personally or through the Rent Controller. It has no power to set aside the order of Rent Controller and order remand for re-trial and re-decision. No power is conferred upon the appellate Authority to remand the matter for fresh disposal. An enquiry envisaged by this provision, is initiated in order to enable the appellate Authority to decide the appeal and it does not contemplate that the appeal should be allowed and the case remanded to the Rent Controller for making an enquiry and dispose of the petition afresh Therefore the order of the appellate Authority allowing the appeal of the tenant and remanding the case to the Rent Controller for deciding afresh cannot be sustained.

Now coming to the second part of the order of the appellate Authority whereby the respondent was permitted to take all additional pleas in his written statement, I find that the appellate Authority failed to take into consideration that the proposed amendment was only to give correct description of the property. The amendment sought was only to insert the words (12 � '' x 30 � '') instead of words (12 � "x 30 � ") In the ejectment petition, the property was described to consisting of a chaubara kitchen, bathroom etc. but instead of showing the area in "feet", it was shown in "inches" and therefore, the mistake was clearly inadvertent and typographical. The amendment sought was not to take any additional or fresh ground of ejectment; but was limited to the extent of correcting the description of the property. In such circumstance the tenant cannot be permitted to take additional or inconsisting pleas to the pleas already taken by him in his original written statement. CPC as such, does not govern the proceedings under the Act, except to the limited extent provided for under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act. Even by applying Sections 16 and 17 of the Act most liberally, one cannot stretch it to allowing a tenant to set up an entirely new case in reply to the amendment plaint where the landlord was only permitted to correct the typographical/clerical errors. In the view of the matter, the order of the Appellate Authority allowing the tenant to take additional or inconsistent pleas by way of fresh written statement, is also not sustainable

For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the appellate Authority is set aside, with a direction to the appellate Authority that it shall decide the appeal in accordance with law. However, the tenant shall be at liberty to press his application dated 20-4-1991, for amendment of the written statement, before the appellate Authority, who shall decide the same in accordance with law.