C.R. No.386 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.386 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.05.2009 Bal Krishan .......Petitioner Versus Bhim Sain Arya ....Respondent Present: Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The application for amendment of the petition to bring to the notice of the Court a subsequent event of the landlord obtaining eviction of two other shops was rejected on the ground that it was belated and application for amendment after the trial has commenced is barred by a new disposition by amendment to the Civil Procedure Code under Order 6 Rule 17 and therefore, the petition for amendment could not be allowed. 2. The entire body of case law making subsequent events as relevant has come only through the branch of rent laws. Especially, in a case where the landlord seeks eviction of a tenant on the ground of personal requirement, such requirement shall be shown to exist not C.R. No.386 of 2009 (O&M) -2- merely at the time of filing of the petition but should subsist through the stage of trial and ultimately till the conclusion of proceedings. A subsequent event may not always be decisive but it shall be relevant. 3. All the decisions have a bearing to the Court's approach where amendment in pleadings stall further proceedings and that the delays should always be avoided they must be seen in the context of whether the party who seeks for amendment has been guilty of laches or the amendment was brought merely to secure delay in the trial. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the subsequent event took place in 2008 and the amendment was sought soon thereafter. It is significant that the landlord did not himself deny the subsequent event of his gaining possession of two other shops subsequent to the filing of the petition but he would explain that his need still persisted by the fact that the properties that have been vacated could not be properly enjoyed without obtaining eviction of the demised premises. This was essentially a matter of evidence and the observation of the Rent Controller that the case would be considered on the respective contentions raised by the petitioner and the respondent is, in my view, not correct. Matters of evidence, which have to stand the test on cross-examination cannot be substituted by mere averments in the affidavit. The application for amendment, if it is allowed cannot mean allowing the tenant to steal a march over the landlord's contention as apprehended by the counsel for the landlord. On the other hand, it affords to him an equal opportunity to explain as to how the subsequent event does not deflect from the need, which he has espoused in the petition. C.R. No.386 of 2009 (O&M) -3- 4. The order of the Court below is, therefore, set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed permitting the tenant to amend his written statement. Needless to state that the landlord shall have an opportunity to file replication to the amended written statement and join issues by letting in evidence with reference to the amended pleadings. The civil revision petition is allowed in above terms. 5. Having regard to the fact that the case has been instituted in the year 2004, the Rent Controller is requested to conclude the pleadings relating to amendment and conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of records. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 18, 2009 Pankaj*