Suresh Goyal vs Varinder Kumar

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 10288. CII of 2012 1. The application is allowed. Annexures P/1 to P/7 are taken on record.

CM No. 10289. CII of 2012

Allowed as prayed for.

CR No. 2431 of 2012

Tenant Suresh Goyal has filed this revision petition u/s 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, the Act) assailing order dated 21.2.2012 passed by learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh thereby dismissing application Annexure P/5 moved by the tenant-petitioner for amendment of his written statement filed in ejectment petition Annexure P/1 which has been instituted by Varinder Kumar respondent-landlord u/s 13 of the Act seeking ejectment of the petitioner herein from half portion of ground floor and basement (larger portion) of SCF No. 508, Motor Market, Near Dhillon Complex, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh.

Landlord has sought ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity of the demised premises.

The tenant by way of amendment wants to raise several preliminary objections which were available to him even at the time of filing of original written statement but the amendment application was filed at the stage when evidence of the tenant was going on. There is no justification advanced by the petitioner-tenant as to why the said pleas could not be taken in the original written statement. Consequently, the said amendment has been rightly declined.

In addition to the aforesaid, the tenant alleged that it came in the evidence of income tax official examined by the tenant as witness that the landlord is carrying on business in his own plot No. 41, Timber Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh (in addition to SCO No. 2431 Sector 22-C, Chandigarh pleaded by the landlord himself) and that the landlord is also carrying on business in SCO No. 39, NAC Manimajra. Counsel for the petitioner contended that these facts were earlier not in the knowledge of the tenant and therefore, should be allowed to be pleaded by amendment of written statement.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same cannot be accepted. As regards SCO No. 39 NAC Manimajra, it is not even pleaded that as to whether landlord is owner thereof or is tenant therein or in what capacity he is occupying the said premises. In the absence of plea in this regard, the proposed amendment is futile.

As regards Plot No. 41 in Timber Market, Sec-tor-26, Chandigarh, it is not sought to be pleaded that the said plot has any premises constructed in it nor it is sought to be pleaded that the said plot would be suitable substitute for the demised premises (SCF) sought to be got vacated by the landlord. Moreover, the statement of income tax official was recorded on 11.3.2011 whereas the amendment application was moved on 21.11.2011 i.e. after 8 months of the recording of statement of the income tax official. In addition to it, income tax official was also examined by the tenant as his own witness. Consequently, it cannot be said that the alleged facts sought to be pleaded by amendment were earlier not in the knowledge of the tenant.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the proposed amendment of written statement has been rightly declined by the learned Rent Controller. Impugned order of learned Rent Controller does not suffer from any perversity, illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Ejectment petition is stated to have been filed in August, 2008 on the ground of personal necessity and amendment application was moved in November, 2011 i.e. after three years three months, obviously to delay the disposal of the ejectment petition. Resultantly, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.