Dismissed

Vijay Kumar v. Ram Parkash and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Oct 2024CR/5704/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that application to amend written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was no merits beyond delaying proceedings. Dismissed the tenant's revision petition assailing Rent Controller's order declining amendment plea.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vijay Kumar Vs Ram Parkash and Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CR-5704-2024 Date of Decision: October 04, 2024

¶3

Vijay Kumar …Pe..oner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Ram Parkash and another …Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶7

Present: - Ms. Dhivya Jerath, Advocate for the pe��oner. DEEPAK GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶8

This revision under Sec�on 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restric�on Act, 1949 (hereina*er referred as ‘the Punjab Rent Act’) read with Ar�cle 226/227 of the Cons�tu�on of India has been filed, assailing the order dated 07.08.2024 (wrongly men�oned as 07.08.2023) [Annexure P-1] passed by learned Rent Controller, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, whereby applica�on of the tenant (pe��oner herein) to amend his wri?en statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been declined.

¶9

Pe��on under the provisions of Punjab Rent Act was filed by the landlord – Ram Parkash (respondent herein) on various grounds including the bonafide necessity. It was pleaded by the landlord that he is not in occupa�on of any other suitable accommoda�on on the ground floor nor had vacated such premises a*er commencement of the Punjab Rent Act.

¶10

As the impugned order indicates that the tenant, i.e. pe��oner herein contested the pe��on. Par�es went to the trial. The landlord closed the evidence on 13.03.2024. The respondent of the pe��on, i.e. tenant Vijay Kumar tendered his examina�on-in-chief on 26.04.2024, but then instead of appearing for the purpose of cross-examina�on, he moved an applica�on on 03.07.2024 seeking amendment of the wri?en statement on the ground that it has recently come to the his no�ce that landlord had another double storey commercial building situated within the municipal town of Nawanshahr, i.e. at Kothi road, Nawanshahr as shown in the site plan annexed with the applica�on and that this property had not been disclosed by the landlord in the pe��on.

¶11

Sarita Rani 2024.10.04 07:04 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶12

CR-5704-2024

¶13

- 2 - 2024:PHHC:132736

¶14

Learned Rent Controller has referred to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which enables the Court to permit any of the par�es to amend the pleadings at any stage, which may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real controversy in ques�on between the par�es. However, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 PC makes it clear that no applica�on for amendment shall be allowed a*er the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence, the par�es could not have raised the ma?er before commencement of the trial.

¶15

In the present case, the case was already at the stage of respondents’ evidence, when the applica�on for amendment of wri?en statement was moved by the respondent in the pe��on, i.e. pe��oner herein. Simply by sta�ng that he (tenant) had recently come to know about another double storey commercial building to be belonging to the landlords, it could not be stated that the pe��oner-tenant could not have raised the ma?er despite due diligence before commencement of the trial.

¶16

Not only above, the plea of bonafide necessity is required to be proved by the landlords. In case, the tenant wants to refute the same, he can produce necessary evidence in rebu?al. In case, the tenant finds that landlord has any other property in his occupa�on, he can produce necessary evidence in this regard. For that purpose, amendment of the wri?en statement is not required.

¶17

The applica�on under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and a*er dismissal thereof, present revision pe��on, appears to have been filed by the tenant with the sole mo�ve to delay the proceedings before the Rent Controller. Finding no merits in the present revision pe��on, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶18

October 04, 2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶19

Sarita Rani 2024.10.04 07:04 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Vijay Kumar v. Ram Parkash and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vijay Kumar v. Ram Parkash and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitender Kumar @ Jony Vs State of Haryana

Ramesh Kumar Thukral Vs Neeraj Kumar and Anr.

Kulwinder Singh @ Guggu Vs State of Punjab

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Sunita Rani and Ors.

Gram Panchayat Assan Kalan Vs Surender and Others

Rajinder Singh and Others Vs Punjab and Sind Bank