C.R. No. 5308 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5308 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.10.2009 Veena Rani wd/o Mohan Lal son of Battana Ram, resident of Banga Road, Nawanshahr, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. Raj Kumar son of Kirpa Ram, resident of Mohalla Hiran Jattan, Nawanshahr, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr. ...Respondent 2. Anju daughter of Mohan Lal; 3. Naveen Bansal son of Mohan Lal; 4. Sandeep Bansal son of Mohan Lal; 5. Neetu d/o Mohan Lal; 6. Parveen d/o Mohan Lal; all residents of Banga Road, Nawanshahr, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr. ...Proforma-Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 06.08.09, rendered by the C.R. No. 5308 of 2009 2 Court of Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr, vide which, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to amend reply, was dismissed. 2. A petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, was filed, by Raj Kumar, land-lord, against Mohan Lal, which was accepted, by the Court of Rent Controller. 3. An appeal, was preferred, against the order, dated 12.04.08. During the pendency of appeal, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission, to amend reply to the petition, was filed, by the revision-petitioner, a legal representative of Mohan Lal, deceased. The same, was dismissed, vide order dated 06.08.09. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the amendment sought for, by the revision-petitioner, was essential, for the just decision of the case. He further submitted that, during the pendency of the petition, the land-lord, had constructed a huge house/bungalow, near the shops, in dispute, and the same, was being used, by one of his sons, as training/coaching centre. He further submitted that the amendment sought for, was, thus, required to prove, that the respondent, did not require the demised premises, for his personal bonafide necessity, or for the personal bonafide necessity of C.R. No. 5308 of 2009 3 his son. He further submitted that the law, with regard to the amendment of the pleadings, is very liberal. He further submitted that, no prejudice, was going to be caused to the opposite party, in the event of allowing the application. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. The land-lord filed an ejectment petition for eviction of Mohan Lal, predecessor-in-interest of the revision-petitioner, his tenant, in the shops, in dispute, as his son, who was unemployed wanted to run his business therein. If, during the course of the petition/appeal, the land-lord constructed a house, and, for the time being, his unemployed son started running his commercial centre, therein, that did not mean, that he did not require the shops, in question, for running his business. Residential house, could not be said to be a commercial property. Even conversion of residential house, into commercial centre, is barred, under Section 11 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Court below, was, thus, right, in coming to the conclusion, that the amendment, was not essential, for the just decision of the controversy, and, as such, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was liable to be dismissed. No doubt, the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, placed reliance on Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, AIR 1969, SC, 1267, M/s Ganesh Trading Co. V. Moji Ram, C.R. No. 5308 of 2009 4 AIR 1978 (SC) 484, Sardar Hari Bachan Singh v. Maj. Harbhajan Singh, (1975) 77 PLR. 21, Baburao v. Maharashtra Insecticides Limited and others 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 473 (Bombay) and Harbhajan Nath Vs. Baldev Raj and others, Civil Revision No. 616 of 2003, decided on 28.07.09, in support of his contention, that the amendment, ought to have been allowed, by the Court below. There is, no dispute, with the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases. However, in the aforesaid cases, it was found as a fact, that the amendment sought for, was essential, for the just decision of the case. It was not that, the Court below, declined the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on technical grounds. In the instant case, the amendment, sought for, was rightly held to be not essential, for the just decision of the case by the Court below. Under these circumstances, no help, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, from the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same, is dismissed. 12.10.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE