Sewa Ram vs Sunder Ram

J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated 2nd September, 1987, whereby the application for amendment of the ejectment petition was dismissed.

2 The ejectment application was filed on 25th July, 1984. When the case was ripe for arguments, application seeking amendment of the petition was filed by the landlord/Petitioner on 1st September, 1987, with the prayer on the ground that "the tenant had converted the verandah of the shop in dispute into a room by raising the walls in it and has affixed the door in front the verandah and as such has impaired the value and utility of the shop in dispute" be allowed to be added. This application, was contested by the tenant. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord had already taken this ground when he stated that the tenant has made material alterations in the shop in dispute by closing the back door, and, thus, impaired the value and utility of the building. According to the learned Rent Controller the landlord should have taken this plea at that time, and that the present application had been filed with a view to making the evidence adduced by him earlier admissible. It was, therefore, held that the application made by the landlord was mala fide.

3 Learned Counsel for the Respondent/tenant submitted that the landlord had filed such an application earlier too, which was, however, dismissed as withdrawn on 20th October, 1987 Thus, according to the learned Counsel, the Rent Controller had rightly disallowed the amendment sought by the Petitioner.

The landlord is seeking the amendment not with a view to enanging the nature of the pleadings taken originally i.e. in the ejectment petition. He only wants to bring on record that the tenant has converted the verandah of the shop in dispute into a room raising the walls on it, and has fixed a door in front of the verandah. Since it is a question of fact, and in case the landlord is able to prove the same, the tenant may be liable for ejectment. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the amendment should have been allowed on payment of costs. Consequently, this petition succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the application for amendment of the ejectment petition is allowed on payment of Rs. 200 as costs.

The landlord shall be given only one opportunity to produce his evidence, if any, at his own responsibility after the amendment is allowed. Similarly, the tenant will also be allowed one opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence, if any, at his own responsibility.

Since further proceedings were stayed by this Court at the time of motion hearing, the parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 31st January, 1989, for further proceedings.