Dismissed

Mst. Lateefan v. Arun Kumar Bhanot

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Mar 2023CR/4489/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by a landlord to amend an ejectment application. The court held that the alleged typographical error in rent payment dates constituted a clear admission affecting the tenant's rights, which could not be withdrawn under established Supreme Court precedents. The amendment was rejected as it would cause injustice given subsequent rent assessment ord

What did the court decide?

The revision petition seeking amendment of the ejectment application was dismissed with no merit found.

Mst. Lateefan Vs Arun Kumar Bhanot — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC:040557

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 230 CR-4489-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.03.2023

Mst. Lateefan

...Pe..oner(s)

Vs.

Arun Kumar Bhanot

¶8

...Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the pe��oner. Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate and Mr. K.S. Rawat, Advocate for the respondent. ***

¶10

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

¶11

Present Revision Pe��on has been filed by the landlord

¶12

seeking se'ng aside of order dated 02.05.2018 passed by learned Rent Controller, Malerkotla (Annexure P4) vide which pe��oner’s applica�on filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereina6er referred to as “CPC”) for amendment of ejectment applica�on, has been dismissed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the pe��oner inter alia submits:

¶14

a) that pe��oner had wrongly men�oned in his ejectment applica�on (Annexure P-1) that respondent/tenant had paid rent of demised shop up to 30.01.2015 and had not paid rent of the same since 01.02.2015 whereas, in actual fact, respondent had paid rent up to 30.01.2005 and arrears of rent were due from 01.02.2005;

¶15

b) that respondent in his reply to the pe��oner’s applica�on

¶16

has stated that he has paid rent up to 30.01.2017 and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if pe��oner’s applica�on is allowed;

¶17

SUNENA 2023.03.29 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

2023:PHHC:040557 2

¶19

c) that said error in ejectment applica�on (Annexure P1) is on account of typographical error and therefore, amendment ought to be allowed. In support, learned counsel relies upon judgment of this Court in Jagjit Singh Vs.

¶20

Mohinder Pal (P&H) Law Finder Doc ID # 19569 and Gurpreet Singh Vs. Dalip Kaur (P&H) Law Finder Doc ID # 606076.

¶21

In response, it is submi@ed by learned counsel for respondent:

¶22

a) that once the pe��oner has made categoric

¶23

statement/averment in the pe��on, she cannot wriggle out of the same;

¶24

b) that respondent has paid rent up to 2017 and vide subsequent order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the learned Addi�onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla, even provisional rent has been assessed and respondent has been directed to make payment of arrears of provisional rent from 15.07.2017 to 15.01.2023;

¶25

c) that respondent has categorically denied the pe��oner’s

¶26

averment and submi@ed that respondent has paid rent up to 30.06.2017.

¶27

No other argument is raised on behalf of the par�es.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the par�es.

¶29

Perusal of record of the case shows pe��oner’s own averment

¶30

in Para 4 and 5 of her ejectment pe��on (Annexure P1) as follows:-

¶31

“ 4. That the respondent has paid the rent of the disputed shop upto 30-12015 and besides this house tax upto 2000.

¶32

5. That the respondent has not paid the rent of the disputed shop from 1-

¶33

2-2015 up �ll now at the rate of Rs.1300/- per month and besides this house tax at the rate of 15% of the monthly rent from the year 2000 to date and interest and costs of the applica�on and as such the respondent

¶34

SUNENA 2023.03.29 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

2023:PHHC:040557 3

¶36

is liable to be evicted from the shop in dispute on the ground of nonpayment of rent.”

¶37

Above pleadings reveal that a specific averment has been made by the pe��oner that respondent/tenant had paid rent of demised shop up to 30.01.2015 and had not paid rent of the same from 01.02.2015. It is the submission of the pe��oner that the date of 30.01.2015 and 01.02.2015 ought to have been 30.01.2005 and 01.02.2005 respec�vely and have been wrongly men�oned as 30.01.2015 & 01.02.2015 due to an inadvertent typographical error. In my view, it is odd for a typographical error to occur in cohesive sequence in two consecu�ve places. If it was a typographical error, it is likely that it would occur at only once place in the Rent Pe��on and not consecu�vely in two places.

¶38

Further, as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶39

Ram Niranjan Kajaria Vs. Sheo Prakash Kajaria (SC) Law Finder Doc ID # 709988 it has been held as follows:-

¶40

“Admission made in pleadings cannot be withdrawn by way of amendment – However, an admission can be clarified or explained and basis of admission can be a,acked in a substan�ve pleadings.”

¶41

Reliance may also be placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

¶42

Court in Gautam Sarup Vs. Leela Jetly (SC) Law Finder Doc ID # 143517 wherein it has been held as follows:-

¶43

“22. What, therefore, emerges from the discussions made hereinbefore is that a categorical admission cannot be resiled from but, in a given case, it may be explained or clarified.......”

¶44

Reliance may also be placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

¶45

Court in Life Insurance Corpora4on of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. (SC)

¶46

SUNENA Law Finder Doc ID # 2029338 wherein it has been held as follows:2023.03.29 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

2023:PHHC:040557

¶48

¶49

“70........(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed

¶50

(i) if the amendment is required for effec�ve and proper adjudica�on of the controversy between the par�es, and

¶51

(ii) to avoid mul�plicity of proceedings, provided

¶52

(a) the amendment does not result in injus�ce to the other side,

¶53

(b) by the amendment, the par�es seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and

¶54

(c) the amendment does not raise a �me barred claim, resul�ng in dives�ng of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situa�ons).....” (Emphasis supplied)

¶55

Thus, as per the above-cited clear pronouncements of law, the amendment sought by the pe��oner cannot be allowed. Moreover, vide order dated 19.01.2023 passed by learned Rent Controller even provisional rent has

¶56

been assessed from 15.07.2017 �ll 15.01.2023 and a sum of Rs.77,890/- has been ordered to be paid by the respondent to the pe��oner.

¶57