Civil Revision No.5667 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5667 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:04.10.2011 Paramjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus The Batala Cooperative Marketing cum Processing Society Ltd., Batala and another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. K.S.Rekhi, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is tenant's revision petition challenging impugned orders dated 14.02.2011 and 06.08.2011 whereby the Rent Controller, Batala, has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for amendment in the written statement and further has not allowed him to lead additional evidence by way of filing his additional affidavit. Brief facts which have emerged out of the averments and the impugned orders placed before this Court by way of this revision petition, are that respondent No.1 (The Batala Cooperative Marketing cum Processing Society Ltd., Batala) filed an ejectment petition in the year 2001 against the petitioner from the demised premises on the ground of non- payment of rent and subletting. Admittedly, the ejectment petition has remained pending for more than last 10 years and now is at final stage. Petitioner moved an Civil Revision No.5667 of 2011 (O&M) 2 application seeking amendment in the written statement on the ground that respondent No.1-Society /landlord has ceased to exist and therefore the ejectment application itself is liable to be dismissed. It has further been averred in the application that the petitioner has come to know about order dated 24.12.2008 whereby the State Government has passed an order merging the aforesaid society-respondent No.1 with Markfed, only now, when he approached the officials of respondent No.1-Society, to pay the arrears of rent. However, Rent Controller has wrongly rejected the application for seeking amendment in the written statement vide order dated 14.02.2011. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Rent Controller has further erred at law while rejecting his prayer vide order dated 06.08.2011 to lead additional evidence by way of filing the additional affidavit to state the aforesaid fact of merger of respondent No.1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders as well as other documents placed on record and averments made in this petition. Admittedly, the ejectment petition is pending for the last more than 10 years. Even the evidence of the respondent-landlord was closed in January, 2008 and since then petitioner has availed dozens of opportunities but failed to conclude the evidence. With regard to the application seeking amendment, it may be mentioned that the averments made in the application, seeking amendment, are totally vague. The petitioner has not specifically mentioned the dates as to when he approached the Society for payment of arrears of rent. Even otherwise, the petition is pending before the Rent Controller since 2001 and one of grounds raised therein is non- payment of rent and the petitioner could have easily deposited the arrears of Civil Revision No.5667 of 2011 (O&M) 3 rent before the Rent Controller itself. Be that as it may, even the order dated 24.12.2008 merging the respondent-Society with Markfed has come into existence in 2008 whereas application for amendment has been filed after a long delay after availing many opportunities to lead evidence and no plausible explanation has been submitted for the said delay. It may be mentioned that admittedly on the date of filing of the petition, the respondent-Society was very well into existence and it is well settled that the relevant date for the purpose of determining rights of the parties with regard to ejectment, is the date of filing the petition. Not only this, it may be relevant to mention that the Society- respondent No.1 has been only merged with Markfed. Thus, it cannot be said that the cause of action has been completely lost but the same is still surviving and Markfed can continue with the aforesaid proceedings being successor in interest of Respondent No.1 and therefore order dated 24.12.2008 is of no consequence for the purpose of ejectment of the petitioner. So far illegality of the order dated 06.08.2011 is concerned, no fault can be found with the aforesaid order. No amount of evidence can be looked into, once the amendment, with regard to non-existence of the Society-respondent No.1, has been rejected. Thus, it is of no use of allowing the petitioner to lead additional evidence of the facts of merger of the said Society. There is no dispute with the proposition of law as held in Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors vs. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors 2007(2) CCC 0785, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court Civil Revision No.5667 of 2011 (O&M) 4 should be liberal while considering the question of amendment in the written statement. However, in the facts of the case the aforesaid authority is not applicable. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Dismissed. October 04, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE