CR No.2290 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2290 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:31.05.2011. Rohtash Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus Sh. Vishvakarma Bhawan Nirman Samiti ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against order of the learned Rent Controller, Narwana dated 08.01.2011 by which application of the tenant for seeking amendment in the written statement has been declined. In short, the landlord filed petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 for seeking eviction of the tenant, inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of rent and change of user. It was alleged that the room was let out as a shop, but now they have received notice from the Haryana Urban Development Authority [for short “HUDA”] for resumption on account of change of user, therefore, they have asked the tenant to vacate the demised premises. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the tenant filed an application for amendment of the written statement in order to plead subsequent events that the landlord is still letting out similar premises as shops. It is alleged that shop No.4 (Ground Floor) and shops Nos.8 to 10 (First Floor) have been let out to different tenants despite receiving notices of HUDA for resumption. He has attached photocopy of the rent agreements and rent CR No.2290 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - ****** receipts of the aforesaid shops. The learned Rent Controller, however, dismissed his application on the ground that the tenant has not pleaded the details of the persons to whom other shops have been rented out and also not given the particular dates when he came to know about those facts. The present revision petition is a result of the impugned order in which notice of motion was issued on 04.04.2011 and dasti summons were given to the counsel for the petitioner to serve the respondent. On 04.05.2011, the respondent was proceeded against ex-parte because despite service, no-one had put in appearance on his behalf, but on 10.05.2011 this Court had made another attempt to serve the respondent through Shri M.P.Gupta, Advocate, Narwana by issuing dasti summons, but nobody has put in appearance to support the impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in detail and perused the available record with his able assistance. It was argued that the observation of the learned Rent Controller is perverse inasmuch as the documents attached with the application have not been looked into by him while passing the impugned order. He drew the attention of the Court to document Annexure P-4 which is rent agreement in favour of Satish Kumar S/o Bharat Singh for shop No.9 which was executed on 01.01.2008, whereas the eviction petition was filed on 18.12.2006. Similarly, the rent agreements dated 01.01.2008 and 19.03.2008 are definitely depicting the subsequent events. He has also referred to shop No.10 (First Floor) and rent receipts in respect of shop No.4 (Ground Floor) dated 09.07.2009 for `2,600/- and receipt of `5,000/- in respect of shop No.8 (First Floor) dated 05.01.2008 in order to submit that at least, prima facie, these documents show that the respondent has been letting out its other shops despite receiving the notice of HUDA for resumption. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the learned Rent Controller has committed an error in dismissing the application for amendment of the written statement only on the ground that no detail about the persons to whom the other shops have been let out during the pendency of the present revision petition has CR No.2290 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - ****** been given. The material which is sought to be brought on record through amendment is a subsequent event and germane to the controversy, therefore, the application for amendment deserves to be allowed. In this view of the matter, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. May 31, 2011. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE