Dismissed

Arun Kumar and Ors. v. Preet Mohinder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Mar 2012CR/1530/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge benched order dismissing an appeal against the Rent Controller's rejection of tenants' application to amend their written statement to include facts about an ejectment petition against a neighboring shop tenant, reasoning that specific averments by the landlord make the amendment unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Application for amendment of written statement dismissed; appeal petition dismissed.

Arun Kumar and Ors. Vs Preet Mohinder Singh — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.R. No.1530 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.1530 of 2012 (O & M) Date of decision: 12.03.2012

¶5

Arun Kumar and another ….Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Preet Mohinder Singh ….Respondent

¶8

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

¶9

Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioners.

¶10

G. S. SANDHAWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

C.M. No. 6531-CII of 2012

¶12

Application filed under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-4 is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit.

¶13

C.R. No.1530 of 2012

¶14

The present petition is directed against the order dated 22.02.2012 whereby, the Rent Controller has declined the amendment of the written statement of the tenants. The tenants, vide the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC wanted to incorporate the following lines:-

¶15

“One ejectment petition titled a Preet Mohinder Singh vs. Pawan Kumar was filed by the petitioner with regard to adjoining shop on the ground of personal necessity. This ejectment application was decided in favour

¶16

C.R. No.1530 of 2012

¶17

¶18

of applicant-landlord and the landlord got the possession of the adjoining shop in which he is running his business. Copy

¶19

of Judgment is enclosed herewith. ”

¶20

Counsel for the tenants-petitioners contends that this amendment was necessary since he could rely upon the judgment dated 19.03.2005 passed by the appellate authority wherein, the ejectment had been upheld of another tenant in favour of the landlord-Preet Mohinder Singh. In the said case, the landlord had averred that he wanted to settle his son Gagandeep Singh in the shop in question and the dispute pertains to Pawan Kumar, the tenant therein. Accordingly, it is contended that it is necessary to plead this fact in the written statement. It is further contended that the order of the Rent Controller declining the amendment is liable to be set aside. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Andhra Bank vs. ABN Amro Bank N.V. and others, 2007 (3) CCC 0722.

¶21

The said submission is not acceptable. A perusal of the ejectment application filed by the landlord goes on to show that he made a specific averment that he had filed a petition regarding shop no. 105/A-2, which was earlier in possession of a tenant and the same was got vacated for use and occupation of his son. Para no. 7 is reproduced as under:-

¶22

“7. That besides the shop in question, the petitioner own two adjoining shops out of which, one shop bearing No. 105/C-2 is in possession of another tenant namely Krishna Rani. The said shop was given on rent to Smt. Krishna Rani in the year 1985, when the petitioner was employed with FCI and the son of the petitioner was still a student. The other shop bearing No. 105/A-2 was earlier in

¶23

C.R. No.1530 of 2012

¶24

¶25

possession of a tenant and the same was got vacated for use and occupation of the said shop by the son of the petitioner. Now the said son Gagandeep Singh is running his own independent business.”

¶26

The landlord had himself specifically averred this fact in his petition, the tenants are yet to lead their evidence and the case is pending for cross examination of the landlord. In the impugned order, it has been noticed that the tenants had appeared on 07.11.2009 and taken time for filing written statement but thereafter filed application. Issues were framed and the case was adjourned for the evidence of the landlord on 18.01.2011 but cross examination was not done and another application was filed and thereafter the case was adjourned for cross examination of the petitionerlandlord. The tenants have not cross examined the landlord again and filed the present application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It has also been noticed that the application is not verified and not supported by any affidavit. In such circumstances, the application for amendment has been dismissed by the Rent Controller.

¶27

The sequence of events go on to show that the earlier ejectment was ordered in the case of the tenant of the neighbouring shop on 19.03.2005. The present petition was filed on 24.09.2009. The averments in the ejectment application are very clear having been reproduced above. The present petitioners are also tenants in the neighbouring shop and were well aware that the other tenant has been evicted. The Rent Controller has already noticed that cross examination is not being conducted on the landlord. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners notices that amendments which are necessary for the decision of the real controversy between the parties are to be taken into consideration. In the considered view of this Court, the amendment

¶28

C.R. No.1530 of 2012 4

¶29

which the tenants are wanting to do, is not necessary. Specific averments have been made by the landlord himself regarding the shop which has been got vacated. The landlord has not been cross examined and the the tenants are yet to lead their evidence. The factum of getting the shop vacated can be put to landlord in his cross examination and brought on record by way of evidence and will accordingly be considered by the Rent Controller.

¶30

Accordingly, the amendment which the tenants are seeking is not necessary for decision of the real controversy between the parties and the present petition is dismissed.

¶31

(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶32

12.03.2012 shivani

Arun Kumar and Ors. v. Preet Mohinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar and Ors. v. Preet Mohinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Kumar Malik Vs Ranjit Kaur

Sunil Kumar Vs Lal Chand and Ors.

Dhirender Gupta Vs M.S. Rana

Jawahar Lal Dutt Vs Ramesh Chander Bajan

Bachittar Singh Vs Jaswant Singh Saggu

Navdeep Singh Vs M/S Manmohan Sales Corporation and Another