Civil Revision No. 7664 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 7664 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.11.2010 Raminder Singh Kapany …Petitioner Versus Manmohan Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Captain Joginder Singh son of Dalip Singh was allotted a freehold residential plot bearing No. 295, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh. He had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the respondent/landlord- Manmohan Singh, accompanied by delivery of possession. A Special Power of Attorney dated 18.7.1977 Ex.P42 and General Power of Attorney dated 18.7.1977 were also executed in favour of the respondent/landlord. A registered Will Ex.P36 was also executed by Captain Joginder Singh in favour of the respondent/landlord. It is a common knowledge that the defence plots, in Chandigarh, cannot be sold for a period of 15 years and by execution of these documents, the possession was delivered to the prospective buyer. It is not in dispute that Captain Joginder Singh expired in the year 2001 and vide registered Will Ex.P36, the respondent/landlord Civil Revision No. 7664 of 2010 2 succeeded to the property. The succession cannot be kept in abeyance. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that the respondent/landlord has been receiving the rent and executing the receipt in lieu thereof. In the present case, the eviction petition was instituted in November 2008. The landlord closed his evidence on 22.1.2010. The evidence of tenant was closed on 25.8.2010. Thereafter, the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. At that stage, an application dated 23.10.2010 (Annexure P8) was filed for seeking amendment of the written statement, stating therein that after the death of Captain Joginder Singh, who had executed the Special Power of Attorney and General Power of Attorney, these documents have come to an end and the landlord could not maintain the eviction petition as he is no longer the owner and attorney. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide his order dated 8.11.2010 (Annexure P10), has rightly held that the proposed amendment is nothing but a ploy to delay the eviction proceedings. The application has been filed at a belated stage. Furthermore, this Court is of the view that since the succession cannot be kept in abeyance, the respondent/landlord, on basis of the Will, has become owner of the property. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Controller has not specifically stated that there was an intention of the petitioner, to delay the eviction proceedings. The very fact that the Rent Controller noticed the dates and conduct of the petitioner, justify the inference that the proposed amendment is nothing but a tactic to delay the eviction proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Baldev Civil Revision No. 7664 of 2010 3 Singh and Others v. Manohar Singh and Another (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 498 and B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parmeswaran Pillai and Another (2000)1 Supreme Court Cases 712 to contend that so far as amendment of the written statement is concerned, the Courts should be liberal. There is no quarrel with this proposition. Two things are required to be seen when the amendment of the written statement is to be liberally granted, as to whether the proposed amendment, in any way, will be germane to the issue raised or has been only sought for delay the proceedings. Secondly, at what stage, such an application has been filed. Since the case has been fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, the proposed amendment, in the year 2010, is not justifiable especially when Captain Joginder Singh died in the year 2001 and the eviction petition was instituted in the year 2008. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 23, 2010 “DK”