CR No.1639 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1639 of 2009 Date of Decision: 9 - 8 - 2010 Santokh Singh Birdi ....Petitioner v. Ranbir & Company and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Piyush Kant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjiv Manrai, Advocate for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner Santokh Singh Birdi, a Non Resident Indian instituted an eviction petition against the respondents. During the pendency of the eviction petition, petitioner Santokh Singh Birdi filed his affidavit and offered himself for cross-examination. When his cross-examination had not concluded, he filed an application to amend the eviction petition. It was stated that in the eviction petition the dimension of the shop due to over sight was given as 10' x 32'-6” instead of 20' x 32”-6”. It was averred that it was a typographical mistake. Lateron, in the amendment application it was also sought that the accompanying site plan contained the dimension 10' x 32'-6”, whereas it should have been 20' x 32'-6”. CR No.1639 of 2009 [2] Mr.Sanjiv Manrai, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that it was not a typographical error, which was sought to be corrected, but the landlord in a clever manner wants to gain benefit of the wrong committed by him. He stated that in the cross-examination, the petitioner-landlord yielded that out of the shop in question he has inherited its half portion and another half portion fell to the share of his brother, therefore, by change of dimension, he wants to get the shop vacated as a Non Resident Indian. Learned counsel argued that under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the amendment cannot be allowed after the evidence has commenced. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. At the first instance, the argument advanced by Mr.Sanjiv Manrai, counsel for the respondents may look attractive but on minute scrutiny, this Court can safely infer that it is only to cause confusion. I have seen the eviction petition in which the dimension of the entire shop has been mentioned as 10' x 32'-6” and in the site plan also it is 10' x 32'-6”. The boundaries of the shop have been well drawn. It is stated that on the southern side there was a shop of other neighbour, northern side shop of the respondents and eastern side a shop of Harmohinder Singh. Therefore, the dimension of the entire shop is to be given. It is not the case that the shop has been divided into two parts by raising a wall or otherwise any partition exists. That being so, the petitioner-landlord can be permitted to correct the size of the shop. In case his brother has become co-owner, the petitioner being a co-owner and landlord, whether has a right to pursue the eviction petition or not, will be adjudicated upon by the Rent Controller while deciding the eviction petition. So far as the argument raised that after CR No.1639 of 2009 [3] commencement of evidence no such amendment in the eviction petition can be permitted qua correction of a typographical error, this Court is of the view that same can always be allowed at any stage. The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not strictly applicable in the proceedings pending before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller can device his own methods for dispension of justice. By mere correction of the size of the shop, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents. Thus, the present revision petition is accepted. The application for amendment of the eviction petition is allowed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) August 9, 2010. JUDGE RC