CR No. 1874 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 1874 of 2010 Date of Decision : 28.09.2010 Jaswinder Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Manprit Singh ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 30.11.2009, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide which application moved by the petitioner, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement has been declined. The respondent / landlord filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner, on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. The petitioner by admitting the respondent to be landlord CR No. 1874 of 2010 -2- deposited the provisional rent, as assessed by the learned Rent Controller to save his eviction. In view of the inter pleader suit filed by the petitioner, the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller was stayed. ( This stay order is prima facie contrary to the law. It is well settled law that tenant has no right to file an inter pleaded suit.) We are not concerned with this dispute at present, as admittedly proceedings before learned Rent Controller stood revived, and the learned Rent Controller is in fact proceeding with the case. The proceedings were revived on an application was moved by the respondent / landlord, by asserting that in pursuance to the compromise entered into between the legal heirs of the owner, a compromise decree was passed by the learned Civil Court, wherein the respondent / landlord was given the property in dispute as also to continue the proceedings. The petitioner tenant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement, to plead therein that there is no order of revival of proceedings by the learned Rent Controller, and that under the compromise decree, the property in dispute was not transferred to respondent landlord. The petitioner prayed, that the developments being subsequent to the filing of the written statement and were necessary to be pleaded for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The learned Rent Controller rejected the application on the ground, that the application was moved, after 3 years of revival of CR No. 1874 of 2010 -3- the proceedings, therefore, was belated. Furthermore, the facts sought to be pleaded were not necessary for adjudication of the case. Mr. Satinder Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order by contending, that the grounds of rejection of application i.e. (i) Delay of three years in moving the application. (ii) That the facts sought to be pleaded were not necessary for adjudication of the case. Can not be sustained being against settled law, that the delay in moving application for amendment can not be a ground to reject the amendment petition. It was also contended that the learned Rent Controller wrongly held that facts to be pleaded were not necessary for adjudication of the case, as the fact whether landlord inherited the property under compromise decree is a question which goes to the root of the matter, and would determine whether the petition itself was maintainable or not. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that as the compromise decree was passed during the pendency of the petition, after the filing of written statement. It was a subsequent event. The question whether title was passed to respondent landlord under compromise decree is a relevant fact for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. However, the question whether the proceedings were survived or not can not be allowed to be pleaded by amendment of written CR No. 1874 of 2010 -4- statement, as this fact can not be treated to be relevant to decide the controversy raised. In any case it is not understood, as to how in absence of revival of proceedings, the application for amendment of written statement could be moved. Even otherwise interpleader suit could not be a ground to stay proceedings before the learned Rent Controller. For the reasons stated above, the revision petition is partly allowed, and the petitioner is allowed to amend the written statement to plead, that the order passed by the learned Civil Court was tempered, forged and fabricated with mala fide inanition to include property in dispute and that the property in dispute was not transferred in favour of respondent landlord under the compromise decree, however, prayer to plead that rent proceedings were not revived, is declined. No costs. The amended written statement be filed within one month from today. However, keeping in view the rent petition, on the ground of personal necessity, is pending since 2004, the learned Rent Controller is directed to expedite the hearing of the case and dispose of it preferably within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 28.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE