CR No.4865 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 11.9.2008 S.D.Katyhal and Anr. ......Petitioners Versus Smt.Shanti Devi ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Mandeep S.Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioners. NAWAB SINGH, J.(ORAL) This revision petition is filed against the order dated July 28,2008 passed by Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, whereby application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure moved by the petitioners-landlords for amendment of ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short “the Act”) , was dismissed. Petitioners-landlords filed ejectment application against the respondent-tenant under Section 13 of the Act. Rent Controller, Jalandhar, by his order dated February 6,2006, dismissed the ejectment application. Petitioners filed appeal before the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, application for amendment of the ejectment application was filed, which was dismissed by impugned order. Ejectment application was filed, inter-alia, on the grounds of personal necessity; non-payment of rent and material impairment of value and utility of the demised house. The ejectment application was dismissed on the ground that the construction, as alleged by the landlord, was made by the respondent-tenant before the property was purchased by the petitioners and it cannot be said that the respondent-tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised house and that the house is not required for the use of daughter of the petitioners. The demised house was taken on rent by the tenant from CR No.4865 of 2008 2 the previous owners. The amendment sought is (i) that the tenant constructed a room, kitchen and toilet in the house without getting permission in writing from the previous landlords or from the petitioners, which has materially impaired the value and utility of the house; (ii) that the petitioners and their daughter were not having any accommodation within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar and (iii) that the cause of action accrued to the petitioners on May 20 and 27, 1999 when house was purchased by them. The order passed by the Rent Controller has been perused. On the contest of parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent?OPR 2. Whether the respondent has materially the value and utility of the property in dispute?OPP 3. Whether the petitioners require the premises for bonafide requirements?OPP 4. Relief. Except issue No.1, the other two issues were decided against the petitioners. Under these two issues, it was observed by the Rent Controller that by constructing additional room, kitchen and toilet, no impairment has been made by the respondent-tenant and also that the same were constructed by her prior to the purchase of the house by the petitioners. It hardly matters that the permission of the previous owner was sought for constructing the room, kitchen and toilet by the tenant because the ejectment was not sought on this ground. So far as the impairment of the house is concerned, evidence was led by the parties and it was observed by the Rent Controller that there was no impairment. So far as bonafide requirement is concerned and the petitioners having no house within the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, Rent Controller has clearly observed that it was pleaded by petitioner No.1 that he was maintaining his office in two rooms under his occupation in the same house and two rooms were in possession of their servant. It shows that the facts sought to be introduced by the amendment are irrelevant particularly when all these factors have been taken into CR No.4865 of 2008 3 consideration by the Rent Controller. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Authority in rejecting the application of the petitioners to amend the ejectment application. It is recorded for the sake of clarity that the observations in this order are only for the limited purpose of disposing of this petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Petition is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) 11.9.2008. JUDGE SN