C.R. No. 5581 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5581 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 01.09.2010 Satish Kumar .......... Petitioner Versus Suresh Kumar ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, to challenge the order dated 13.8.2010, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Kaithal, vide which the respondent / landlord has been allowed to amend the rent petition, filed under Section 13-A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) to be one under Section 13 of the Act. The respondent / landlord sought eviction of the petitioner tenant under Section 13-A of the Act, by claiming to be a retired Government servant. The application moved by the petitioner / tenant for leave to defend was allowed ,and the tenant was allowed to contest the rent petition on merit. The landlord / respondent sought the eviction of the C.R. No. 5581 of 2010 -2- ***** petitioner / tenant, on the ground of personal necessity. The application was accordingly moved for converting the petition to be one under Section 13 of the Act, instead of one being under Section 13-A of the Act, as the purpose of speedy eviction was defeated when the leave to defend was granted. The petitioner / tenant has challenged the impugned order, on the ground, that the respondent / landlord could not be allowed to amend the petition by invoking the previsions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the feg end of the proceedings, because of the proviso to order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner can not be accepted, as the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not strictly applicable to the rent petition, and only underlying principles are to be seen. The petitioner can not be said to be prejudiced by the order passed by the Court, as it is more advantageous to the petitioner, as he would have a right of appeal against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, which was not applicable to him under Section 13-A of the Act. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as he has been permitted to file amended petition. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. 01.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE