IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2009 of 2000 Date of decision:27.04.2009 Kishan Chand ...Petitioner versus Rahul Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. ----- 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is filed by the tenant who is aggrieved by reviewing an order passed by the Rent Controller permitting the tenant to file an amended written statement, consequent on the amended petition filed by the landlord. Amendment to the petition came in the following fashion: 2. In the petition for eviction filed under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, the landlord was reported to have died and three persons claiming themselves to be legal representatives under a Will were added as parties. On the application being allowed and when the petition was amended consequent on the impleadment of the three persons the written statement was also permitted to be amended Civil Revision No.2009 of 2000 - 2 - permitting the defendant to contend that the persons who had impleaded themselves as parties were not competent to maintain the petition and that all the legal representatives had not been added. 3. Subsequently it transpires that an application had been filed at the instance of one Satpal who claimed himself to be a legal heir along with a host of other persons namely Kamlesh, Parkash Wati, Sita Devi, Varinder Kumar, Surinder Kumar, Neelam Rani as sons and daughters of deceased Om Parkash, the deceased son of Bhagwan Dass, Lajwanti Devi widow of Om Parkash, the pre-deceased son of Bhagwan Dass, five other persons claiming to be sons and daughters of Rameshwar Dass, yet another pre-deceased son of Bhagwan Dass, Pooja Rani daughter of Ashok Kumar, another pre-deceased son of Bhagwan Dass. This application was also allowed and curiously the persons who were denying the existence of Will were also added as co-petitioners along with persons who claimed right to the property under a Will alleged to have been executed by the deceased-landlord Bhagwan Dass. In my view, the procedure itself was wrong for, petitioners having adverse claims to each other, one set of persons claiming under a Will and another set of persons claiming as on intestacy could not have been joined as co-petitioners. 4. Be that as it may, the application was filed by some among the petitioners seeking for review of the order passed already permitting the amended written statement to be filed by the defendant- tenant. The contention was that the tenant could not have filed an amended written statement to make reference to the maintainability of Civil Revision No.2009 of 2000 - 3 - the petition when the amendment of the petition itself was merely to the cause title and not with reference to any of the averments contained in the petition. The contention found favour with the Rent Controller who directed that the permission granted to the tenant to file an amended written statement was liable to be recalled and the statement as it was originally filed was directed to be restored. 5. As a matter of general principle, it could be affirmed that an amendment to a written statement could not have been permitted to be made to traverse beyond what was contended by the amended eviction petition. In this case, when the petition was directed to be amended permitting three more persons to claim as legal representatives of the deceased-landlord through a Will, the tenant was entitled to file his own additional written statement or bring an amendment to the statement already made, to incorporate his defences for the impleadment of persons claiming through a Will. This was precisely what was done by the tenant in taking up the plea that the persons who were claiming as legal representatives under a Will were not competent to prosecute the petition. The lines of defence that was amended came through the following words :- “1. That there are two sets of rival claimants to the estate of Sh. Bhagwan Dass deceased. In this situation the primary question which needs to be answered is as to in whom the title to the estate of Sh. Bhagwan Dass vests after his death. The question of title as to who is/are now owners of the demised premises in the possession of the respondent as a tenant is to be decided by the Civil Court in a regular suit before any application for ejectment of the tenant of the Civil Revision No.2009 of 2000 - 4 - deceased Bhagwan Dass can be taken up. The law in this behalf is well settled by now that a Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to decide the question of title and that any ejectment application against any tenant does not lie nor can proceed in the circumstances as of the present case. Therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed. 2. That the amended application also shows that the petition has been submitted by Bhagwan Dass deceased. No petition can be filed by a dead person, therefore also, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. That Rahul Kumar alone has no right to file any amended application for ejectment. It is signed by him alone. Admittedly the deceased Bhagwan Dass has left behind two sons Satpal and Kamlesh, Parkash Wati and Sita Devi daughters, Varinder Kumar, Surinder Kumar sons of Om Parkash, Nilam Rani d/o Om Parkash, Lajwanti widow of Om Parkash, Anita Rani, Sima Rani daughters of Rameshwar Dass, Puja Rani d/o Ashok Kumar according to the application of Sat Pal s/o Bhagwan Dass. Besides, Ruhul Kumar, Priya Varat, Manu sons of Rameshwar Dass and there may be others also who are not supposed to be in the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore the application is liable to be dismissed. 4. That in the heading of the application name Sat Pal son of Bhagwan Dass has been shown as one of the petitioners, but his name has not been mentioned as a person submitting the application nor signed by him. Therefore also, the application is liable to be dismissed.” Reply parawise 1. That para No.1 of the amended application is denied inasmuchas it was Bhagwan Dass who was the owner of the demised premises. Accordingly, he is dead and a dead person cannot now be made the present owner of premises in dispute. Civil Revision No.2009 of 2000 - 5 - 2. That para No.2 of the application is wrong, hence it is denied. However, it is correct that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between Bhagwan Dass deceased on the one hand and the respondent on the other. 3. That para No.3 of the amended application as alleged is incorrect, hence denied. The respondent has always been ready willing to pay the rent of the shop to the deceased petitioner Bhagwan Dass after the expiry of each month. But it was the deceased-petitioner who refused to accept the same. Thus it is totally incorrect that the respondent is a bad pay master. The respondent had tendered an amount of Rs.775/- on the first date of hearing in the court which includes rent interest, house tax and costs as assessed by the court and the same was accepted by the deceased-petitioner. 3-A That para No.3(A) of the amended application is incorrect, hence denied. However, it is submitted that the respondent has paid an amount of Rs.775/- in the court to the deceased petitioner on the first date of hearing on account of rent, interest, house tax and costs as assessed by the Court. 3-B That para No.3(B) of the application is admitted to the extent that the deceased petitioner was the owner of three shops as shown in the site plan mark X and the same are on rent with different tenants. It is also admitted that the shops marked A,B,C, D is in the occupation of the respondent. But it is categorically denied that the deceased petitioner required the said shop for his personal necessity. The present application has been filed by the deceased petitioner with malafide intention and as such the same deserves to be dismissed. The deceased petitioner was very rich person of city Sangrur. The deceased petitioner owned and possessed a Cinema House, Cotton & Ginning Mill, numerous shops in the main bazar, agricultural lands, show Civil Revision No.2009 of 2000 - 6 - rooms and various commercial plots within the Municipal Limits of Sangrur. However, it is denied for want of knowledge that Ramesh Kumar s/o Bhagwan Dass deceased had died about 7 years back leaving behind three sons namely Rahul Kumar, Priya Vart and Manu Kumar. It is also denied for want of knowledge that mother of Rahul etc. has also expired in the year 1992. It is totally incorrect and stoutly denied that there was nobody to look after the children of Ramesh Kumar son of deceased petitioner and that deceased petitioner was looking after the orphan sons of Ramesh Kumar (Rameshwar Dass). The children of Ramesh Kumar are enjoying good position in the society, and are well settled in their lives. Some of them were helping the petitioner in his business while the others are doing their trade etc. Thus the assertions made in this para by the deceased petitioner that he wanted to do some work to pass his time in the shop in dispute and also wanted to settle Manu Kumar, his grandson, in the shop in dispute are false, baseless and concocted. In fact, the deceased petitioner was pressing upon the respondent to increase the rent of the shop in dispute to which the respondent did not agree and i.e. why the deceased petitioner had dragged the respondent into the present litigation unnecessarily on false and baseless grounds.” 6. If the amended written statement with all the preliminary objections and the substantial objections which have been taken in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 3-A and 3-B are taken together they all have a bearing to the impleadment of only three persons as parties to the petition. The consistent line of defence adopted in the amended written statement is that there is a dispute amongst the heirs of the deceased-landlord and the prosecution of the petition at the instance of Civil Revision No.2009 of 2000 - 7 - the petitioners who were impleaded as parties would result in adjudication of dispute regarding title which could not be undertaken by the Rent Controller. 7. I have already pointed out that the manner in which the order was passed by the Rent Controller impleading also the persons claiming to be the legal representatives on intestacy could not have been made to be arrayed as legal representatives along with persons who are claiming as legal representatives under a Will. Evidently there was a dispute inter se and they could have been arrayed only as respondents. However, the counsel for the respondent points out that the amendment itself was carried in such a fashion that only Satpal had been added as a legal representative from amongst the persons who are claiming on intestacy, apart from the three persons who are added as legal representatives on the basis of a Will. On instructions from the counsel conducting the case at the trial Court, the learned counsel for the respondent states that even Satpal has withdrawn himself out of contest and now the petition is being prosecuted only by the three persons claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased on the basis of a Will. If that were so, the contentions raised by the tenant by the amended written statement disputing the maintainability of the petition in the manner now sought to be done assumes significance. I may not be understood as saying that the defence is correct but it is nonetheless the defence that has been taken by the tenant on appropriate legal advice. 8. The written statement that was amended brings nothing more than what the situation demanded when the original Civil Revision No.2009 of 2000 - 8 - landlord died and some of the legal representatives alone came on record claiming to be petitioners under the Will. The order deleting the amended portion permitted to be made to the written statement filed by the tenant is erroneous and accordingly set aside. 9. The revision petition is allowed in the above terms. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the case is pending since 1996 and the case would require to be disposed of at the earliest. I see justification for such a request and direct that the Rent Controller takes up the case on priority basis and dispose of the case within a period of six months from the date of this order. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.04.2009 sanjeev