Sham Lal vs Bhajan Lal

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—A petition of the landlords for ejectment of the tenants from the shop situated within the municipal limits of M.C. Yamuna Nagar, filed u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short, "the Act"] is pending adjudication before the Rent Controller, Jagadhri since 07.09.2009. One after the other, in total three applications, for amendment of the written statement i.e., Ist on 26.07.2010, 2nd on 27.8.2011 and the third one on 13.06.2012 were preferred by the tenants.

It is claimed by the petitioners-landlords that once issues had been framed and the petition had proceeded further where evidence was being produced by the petitioners-landlords, amendment of the written statement allowed by the Rent Controller, is legally untenable.

Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has claimed that subsequent events which were required to be pleaded, being necessary for adjudication of the petition for ejectment, could not have been shunned from being brought before the Rent Controller.

Counsel for the parties have been heard by going through the impugned order, grounds of revision as also the attending facts and circumstances.

In the present petition, the Landlords have expressed their agony and anguish over the delay in decision of their petition for ejectment of the tenants from the shop in dispute which is pending right from 7.9.2009, wherein, inter alia they have also put forth ground of personal necessity. Tenants on their part have been moving one application after the other and the present one under consideration is concededly the third one in the trail.

Learned counsel for the petitioners citing Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and Another Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Others, and Vidyabai and Others Vs. Padmalatha and Another, has urged that when trial commences after framing of issues, the witnesses come forward and they file affidavits in lieu of their examination-in-chief, the Court has no jurisdiction to allow amendment of the pleadings. There is no dispute about the law and there cannot be any. In the present case, it is to be evaluated as to whether amendment in the written statement is sought by the respondents at a later stage, when deposition of witnesses of the plaintiffs had already started and what are the attending circumstances. Further, it is to be seen as to whether amendment in the pleadings is necessary for adjudication of the matter in litigation.

In the present case, concededly issues were framed on 15.4.2010 and examination-in-chief of one witness, by way of affidavit, has already been made. When the case was adjourned for his cross-examination, the application in question was preferred by the tenant thereafter.

It is claimed that during the pendency of the petition, the landlords have taken possession of residential portion as well as of shop from one of the tenants, named Bihari Lal and that the said portion vacated by him is adjoining to the premises in question. It is further claimed that the landlords in fact, do not require the premises in dispute as they have already executed an agreement to sell with the respondents on 15.7.1985 and have also received earnest money thereof.

Perusal of the paper book reveals that vide second application of the tenants, granted on 20.10.2010, request of the defendant-tenants to incorporate the facts that the premises adjoining to the present one are falling vacant for the landlords in pursuance of the undertaking given by the tenants thereof, has already been allowed and when these subsequent facts have already been introduced in the written statement, there was no necessity then to seek such amendment in the written statement.

Counsel for the respondents-tenants has no answer to offer to the question that when such amendment has already been allowed on 20.10.2010 and necessary additional plea is already there in the written statement, why amendment to this effect had been sought in the written statement once more. At this stage, relevant portion of order dated 20.10.2010 passed qua amendment regarding neighbouring premises, reads as under :

Present Shri Rohit Arya, Advocate for petitioners. Shri V.K. Rajoria, Advocate for respondents.

...

Heard arguments on application for amendment of the written statement filed on behalf of respondents. By moving the present application, respondents want to bring on record certain subsequent events which have taken place during pendency of this application.

Learned counsel for petitioners Shri Rohit Arya, Advocate, during course of arguments could not dispute the fact that the premises which is adjacent to the demised premises would be vacated by the tenant thereof as per undertaking given by him before Hon''ble High Court.

In view of circumstances, mentioned in the application, I find that to determine the real controversy in this case, amendment is necessary. No prejudice whatsoever shall be occasioned to the petitioners in case amendment as prayed for is allowed. Hence, application is allowed. Amended written statement be filed on 29.11.2010.

R.C. Jagadhari, 20.10.2010.

So far as plea with regard to agreement to sell dated 15.7.1985 is concerned, the petition having been preferred on 7.9.2009 and written statement of the respondents-tenants having been preferred on 28.1.2010, such agreement being of yesteryears, such plea was definitely already and that too long ago was available with the tenants. Such plea having not been taken at the time of filing of written statement and even when amendment to such written statement had already been asked twice and second time allowed, is not permissible at this stage. When entirety of facts and circumstances are gone-through, it is clear that the amendment sought for by the tenants neither advances the cause of justice nor in any way better equips the Rent Controller for complete, competent comprehensive and effective adjudication of the matter in controversy. Rather, it is found that the application of the tenants to seek amendment in the written statement is merely a device to delay and dilate the matter as also to drag on the litigation merely to avoid their ejectment.

Sequelly, allowing the revision petition, reversing the impugned order dated 30.8.2012 [Annexure P/4], the application of the respondents-tenants for amendment of the written statement is dismissed. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 1.9.2014.