CR No.5422 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.5422 of 2009 Date Of Decision: 18.09.2009 **** R.N. Highways (P) Ltd. . . . . Petitioner VS. Basera Promoters & Hotels (P) Ltd. . . . . Respondent **** 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. H.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against three orders dated 17th March, 2009, 9th June, 2009 and 24nd August, 2009 (Annexure P1 to P3) passed by the Rent Controller, UT Chandigarh. Vide the first order, the Rent Controller has permitted the petitioner-tenant to summon its left out witnesses and examine them as was permitted by this Court except RW1 (Mahinder Singh) whose statement has already been recorded. Vide the second order, the Rent Controller has declined the petitioner’s prayer to recall RW1 Mahinder Singh and vide the third order, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC moved by the petitioner for amendment of its written statement has been dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the impugned orders carefully. In my considered view no case to interfere with the impugned orders by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is made out. It is indeed not in dispute that RW1 Mahinder Singh had been examined by the petitioner before its evidence was closed by the Rent Controller. This Court vide CR No.5422 of 2009 - 2 - order dated 24th February, 2009 permitted the petitioner to lead its evidence but that order meant to permit the petitioner to lead the remaining evidence only. The said order cannot be construed to permit the petitioner to recall a witness who had already been examined. Otherwise also, no case to recall the RW1 Mahender Singh is made out. The orders dated 17th March, 2009 and 9th June, 2009, therefore, do not suffer from any legal infirmity. Adverting to the application for amendment of the written statement, no doubt that the Court should be liberal in permitting the parties to amend their pleadings, moreoso, when such an amendment is based upon subsequent events. However, the said principle is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The petitioner wants amendment in the written statement so as to incorporate its “counter- claim” for “damages”. The petitioner has averred that the District Consumer Redressal Forum, UT Chandigarh vide its order dated 24.02.2009 has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner being not maintainable and has relegated it to the remedy of the Civil Suit. The petitioner contends that the Rent Controller under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is also a ‘Civil Court’ and can adjudicate the counter-claim, if permitted to be raised by the petitioner by amending its written-statement. The Rent Controller has declined the amendment after observing that the proceedings under the Rent Act are essentially summary in nature and the Rent Controller does not possess the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. The view taken by the Rent Controller while declining amendment to the written statement is founded upon correct proposition of law. The Rent-Controller is a Tribunal constituted under the Rent Act to decide only those landlord-tenant related matters in respect whereof the Act vests jurisdiction in it. On the contrary, a counter-claim for damages can be adjudicated by the Civil Court only. The third impugned order, declining to entertain the counter-claim too, warrants no interference by this Court. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others vs. K.K. Modi and others, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 577 is totally indistinguishable and has no bearing on the facts of this case. Dismissed. CR No.5422 of 2009 - 3 - However, it shall not preclude the petitioner to raise the rest of its contentions (other than the counter-claim) before the Rent Controller, in accordance with law. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 18.09.2009 shonkar