Revision against dismissal of tenants' amendment application under Rent Act. High Court held amendment denied as landlady's subsequent sale of shops rendered plea of bona fide need for expansion irrelevant to ejectment petition.
Revision petition dismissed in limine for lack of merit as proposed amendment was irrelevant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C. R. No. 7373 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 7373 of 2011 Date of Decision : January 18, 2012
Nitin Mehra .... Petitioner Vs.
Shashi Seth and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present : Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Nitin Mehra – respondent no.1 before Rent Controller has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 09.09.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Rent Controller, Amritsar, thereby dismissing application moved by tenants (petitioner and proforma respondents no.2 to 4 herein) for amendment of their written statement in ejectment petition filed by respondent no.1 landlady under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short – the Rent Act).
Respondent no.1 herein – Shashi Seth has filed ejectment
C. R. No. 7373 of 2011
2
petition under the Rent Act seeking ejectment of petitioner and proforma respondents no.2 to 4 (son, widow and two daughters of Tilak Raj Mehra) from disputed shop no.327/XII-3(old) and new No.28, situated at Amritsar on the ground that landlady is in bona fide requirement of the demised shop for expansion of business of her sons. The landlady and her sons are already in occupation of adjoining shop no.326.
Tenants moved application Annexure P-1 for amendment of written statement to plead that after filing of the present ejectment petition, the landlady has sold two shops bearing no.328 and no.329 to one Manjit Singh (tenant thereof) and his sons vide sale deed dated 22.01.2010. In the said sale deed, the landlady also stated that she is in possession of land of khasra no.4//10/1 min. towards South of the two shops, which were sold. Accordingly, the tenants want to plead by amendment that landlady and her sons already have other sufficient property for their business. Other ancillary averments are also sought to be made by way of amendment. The amendment application has been dismissed by learned Rent Controller vide order Annexure P-2, which is under challenge in this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that need of the landlady is not bona fide because during pendency of the ejectment petition, the landlady has sold two shops. It was contended that being
C. R. No. 7373 of 2011
3
subsequent event, the tenants should be allowed to plead the same by way of amendment of the written statement. It was also contended that Court, at this stage, should not go into the correctness or falsity of the plea sought to be taken by amendment and should not record finding on merits of the said plea. It was also submitted that amendment of pleading, which is necessary for proper adjudication of the lis, should be allowed. Reliance in support of these contentions has been placed on two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court namely Om Parkash Gupta vs. Ranbir B. Goyal reported as
2002 (1) R. C. R. (Rent) 150 and Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others vs. K. K. Modi and others reported as 2006 (2) R. C. R. (Civil) 577 and also on two judgments of this Court passed in the cases of Ashok Kumar vs. Mohinder Pal Singh and another reported as 2008 (1) R. C. R. (Civil) 772 and Surjit Kaur and others vs. Shanti Devi reported as 2011 (1) R. C. R. (Civil) 131 .
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions.
There is no dispute with the proposition that amendment of pleading arising out of subsequent event can be allowed. There is also no quarrel with the proposition that amendment of pleading, which is necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties, should also be allowed. It is also correct that at this stage, the Court is not required to look into correctness or falsity of plea or merits or demerits thereof. However, these propositions of law do not come to the assistance of the petitioner
C. R. No. 7373 of 2011
4
herein. It is petitioner's own case that the two shops, which have been sold by the landlady during the pendency of the ejectment petition were already on rent with Manjit Singh – one of the vendees. Consequently, the said shops were not available to the landlady and her sons for expansion of their business. In this view of the matter, the proposed amendment of written statement by tenants would be completely irrelevant and would have no bearing on the controversy to be determined in the lis. As regards land of khasra no.4//10/1 min. available with the landlady, it is not even sought to be pleaded by the tenants that there is any construction in the said land. Consequently, the plea regarding the said land, if lying vacant without any construction therein, would also not be relevant for adjudication of the ejectment petition.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that proposed amendment of written statement cannot be allowed, although for reasons different from those recorded by the Rent Controller. The revision petition is thus devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE
January 18, 2012
monika
2 issues framed by the court
Whether amendment of written statement after the filing of ejectment petition can be allowed when subsequent sale of shops makes the plea of bona fide need irrelevant.
Whether Court should examine correctness or falsity of plea regarding bona fide need when allowing amendment of pleadings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Om Parkash Gupta vs. Ranbir B. GoyalReferred¶23
Om Parkash Gupta vs. Ranbir B. Goyal reported as 2002 (1) R. C. R. (Rent) 150
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others vs. K. K. Modi and othersReferred¶23
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others vs. K. K. Modi and others reported as 2006 (2) R. C. R. (Civil) 577
Ashok Kumar vs. Mohinder Pal Singh and anotherReferred¶23
Ashok Kumar vs. Mohinder Pal Singh and another reported as 2008 (1) R. C. R. (Civil) 772
Surjit Kaur and others vs. Shanti DeviReferred¶23
Surjit Kaur and others vs. Shanti Devi reported as 2011 (1) R. C. R. (Civil) 131
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nitin Mehra
Shashi Seth
L. N. MITTAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
