CR No.3296 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.3296 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 26.10.2009 **** Smt. Sohag Wati . . . . Petitioner VS. Manoj Kumar and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the respondents **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.04.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, whereby, application filed by the petitioner-landlord for amendment of the eviction petition, has been dismissed. (2). The respondent was admittedly inducted as tenant in a shop forming part of property No.1070/XV, Hussainpura, Amritsar. While the petitioner’s case throughout has been that the ‘open space’ on the backside of the shop was not a part of the tenanted premises and has been in her possession, the respondent-tenant pleaded otherwise and claimed that the ‘open space’ is part of the tenancy and is in his possession. CR No.3296 of 2009 - 2 - (3). The eviction petition was filed in the year 1998 and is pending since then. It may be noticed that the respondent-tenant had filed a suit for permanent injunction in the year 1996 against their forcible dispossession from the ‘open space’ in dispute. That suit has been decreed on 01.12.2007. Though the petitioner- landlord has challenged that judgement and decree in appeal, she simultaneously applied for amendment of the eviction petition to add a prayer regarding eviction of the respondent-tenant from the disputed ‘open space’ as well. The aforesaid application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller vide the said impugned order. (4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned order. (5). It is true that neither in the application seeking amendment nor otherwise, the petitioner-landlord has admitted the respondent’s tenancy over the ‘open space’. However, if the Civil Court in an injunction suit has protected the possession of the respondent-tenant over the ‘open space’ leaving no option with the petitioner-landlord but to eject the respondent from that ‘open space’ through the process of law only, the petitioner-landlady is well within her rights to seek amendment of the ejectment application and include the ‘open space’ as a part of the demised premises for the purposes of eviction of the respondent-tenant. The approach of the Rent Controller in declining amendment on the plea that ‘the petitioner kept on waiting for 10 years till the Civil Suit was decided’, is CR No.3296 of 2009 - 3 - wholly erroneous for the reason that the petitioner has never admitted the respondent to be a tenant in the ‘open space’. It is only when she has been compelled not to dispossess the respondent-tenant from that ‘open space’ except, in due course of law, that the petitioner-landlady is required to follow one or the other prescribed mode of dispossession, namely, the eviction application under the rent Act. (6). For the reasons aforestated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 24.04.2009 is hereby set aside and the petitioner-landlady is permitted to file the amended eviction application, of course with liberty to respondent-tenant to file an amended counter thereto. Necessary consequences shall also follow. (7). Ordered accordingly. (8). Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 26.10.2009 vishal shonkar