Allowed

Pushpa Devi v. Ashok Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Feb 2012CR/1305/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a rent controller's order dismissing an amendment application under CPC, holding that amendments to plead mandatory ingredients of Section 13(3) should be permitted at an advanced stage to avoid dismissals on technical grounds if no prejudice is caused to the tenant.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Rent Controller dismissing the amendment application is set aside and the amendment is allowed to be filed by 31.03.2012.

Pushpa Devi Vs Ashok Kumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.R. No. 1305 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No. 1305 of 2012 (O & M) DATE OF DECISION: February 28, 2012

¶5

Smt. Pushpa Devi

¶6

.........APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

Ashok Kumar

......RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA

¶11

Present: Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner.

¶12

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)

¶13

C.M. No. 5478-CII of 2012

¶14

Application filed for exemption from filing certified copy of Annexure P-2 is allowed, in view of averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit.

¶15

C.R. No. 1305 of 2012

¶16

Challenge in this petition is to order dated 09.01.2012 whereby, the Rent Controller, Narnaul has dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The petitioner who is the landlord and a lady, vide the application wanted to amend the petition and add the words “the petitioner has not got vacated any shop in Narnaul after 1949 without any valid reason.” This amendment has been declined on the ground that the case is at an advanced stage and is for rebuttal and in spite of the fact that objection had been taken in the written statement by the respondent. The trial Court has placed reliance on various judgments to justify denying the said relief

¶17

C.R. No. 1305 of 2012

¶18

¶19

on the ground that issues have been framed and parties have led their evidence. The trial Court has noticed the decision of Full Bench of this Court rendered in Banke Ram vs. Smt. Sarasti Devi, 1977 PLR 112 wherein, it has been held that in case this fact is not pleaded, then the evidence regarding the ingredients envisaged in sub-clauses (b) and (c) can be looked into. In spite of this, the petition has been dismissed on the ground that the case is for rebuttal evidence.

¶20

The said order is not justifiable. The petition has been filed by the landlady on the ground that the premises are required by her son who is unemployed and there is a technical defect in the said petition. The Court should not have held in the manner that after the trial has commenced, amendment cannot be allowed. The petitioner-landlady is not wishing to withdraw any admission. It is only the requirement of law which is sought to be incorporated in the pleadings to ensure that the petition is not dismissed on a technical ground. Evidence would have already come on record as to whether there is any other property in possession of the landlady or her son, on the basis of which, the case has to be decided on merits. It is a settled principle that the rules of procedure are handmaids of justice and cannot come in the way on account of technicalities as held in Ram Piari vs. Collector, Sub Division Abohar, 1993 (3) PLR 36. That recently, this Court in Shankar Lal vs. Madan Lal and others, 2011 (1) RCR (Rent) 139, after taking into consideration the observations of Full Bench of this Court in Banke Ram's case (supra), has held that the ingredients of Section 13(3) are mandatory and no specific performa is required. It is always open to the parties to plead the ingredients in any form given under the Act and the landlord can prove the said ingredients in

¶21

C.R. No. 1305 of 2012

¶22

¶23

evidence and if it is shown that no prejudice is caused to the tenants on account of the non-pleadings of the ingredients, the petition cannot be rejected.

¶24

Keeping in view this fact, no harm would be caused to the tenant if the said amendment is allowed in the pleadings to avoid dismissal on technical ground. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Banwari Lal vs. Ram Parkash and another, 2009(2) RCR (Rent) 160. The relevant paragraph of the judgment read as under:-

¶25

"12. I find no force in the contention raised

¶26

by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though, it is always open to the parties to plead the ingredients of Section 13(3) of the Act in any form given under lthe Act and it is also settled that landlord can always to prove the said ingredients in evidence and if it is shown that no prejudice is caused to the tenant on account of nonpleading of ingredients of Section 13(3) of the Act, then petition cannot be rejected. However, it is also held that the ingredients of Section 13(3) are mandatory in nature though no specific performa is required to be given."

¶27

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order passed

¶28

by the Rent Controller is set aside and the amendment which is sought to be effected is allowed. The amended petition be filed by 31.03.2012. The said order is being passed ex parte at the back of the respondent-tenant only to avoid harassment and expense of the tenant, who will have to contest this petition which arises from the Rent Controller order at Narnaul, the result of which is not likely to be affected even if the presence of the tenant is there.

¶29

C.R. No. 1305 of 2012

¶30

¶31

However, if there has been any material concealment on part of the petitioner, it is open to the respondent to file an application for recall of the

¶32

order.

¶33

28.02.2012 shivani

¶34

(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE