CR No.973 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - CR No.1138 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** 1. CR No.973 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.4.2011 M/s Parkash Pharmacy and another . . .Petitioners Versus Tara Singh (died) through his LRs and others . . . Respondents ***** 2. CR No.1138 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.4.2011 M/s Mohindra Opticals and another . . .Petitioners Versus Tara Singh (died) through his LRs and others . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.M.S. Sachdev, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Rohit Sud, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr.Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate, and for respondents No.2 and 3. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) By this order, I shall be disposing of two Civil Revisions namely, CR No.973 of 2011 titled as M/s Parkash Pharmacy and another Versus Tara Singh (died) through his LRs and others and CR No.1138 of 2011 titled as M/s Mohindra Opticals and another Versus Tara Singh (died) through his LRs and others in which the tenants have assailed the order passed by the Rent Controller whereby their application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CR No.973 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - CR No.1138 of 2011 (O&M) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) for amendment of the written statement has been declined. In short, the landlord filed the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) in order to seek eviction of the tenants. While the tenants were leading their evidence, they filed an application in both the aforesaid cases for the purpose of amending their written statement in order to explain the averments already made therein which have been declined by the learned Court below on the ground that the tenants in the garb of elaboration of the plea already taken cannot plead evidence in their pleadings. Learned counsel for the petitioners has very fairly admitted that the basic plea has already been taken in the original written statements and by way of applications for amendment the tenants are only seeking elaboration of those plea which would not cause any prejudice or injustice to the landlord if it is allowed. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents/landlords have urged that the tenants cannot be allowed to plead evidence in the garb of amendment of the written statements which is otherwise barred under Order 6 Rule 2 of the CPC. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The amendment which has been sought is of para No.2 of the preliminary objections and para No.1 & para No.2(ii) on merits. In para No.2 of the preliminary objection of the original written statement, tenants have already taken a plea that the petition is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties and the respondents/landlords should have proved that they are owners in possession of the property in dispute. By way of the amendment, they wanted to allege that Harvinder Singh and Bimla have no concern with the tenanted premises nor they are the landlords. Similarly in para No.1 on merits of the original written statement he had alleged that it is correct that the respondents are the tenants on rent @ `160/- per month but the petitioners are to prove that all are owners of the property in dispute. Whereas in the amendment it has been alleged by them that they are tenants of Tara Singh and not of Harvinder Singh and Bimla. In para No.2(ii) on merits of the original written statement, it is alleged in detail that the property in dispute is not in dilapidated condition and by virtue of amendment of CR No.973 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - CR No.1138 of 2011 (O&M) this paragraph some more facts are sought to be added with regard to the basic averments of the denial of the property having been dilapidated. From the perusal of the record, I have found that the petitioners are unnecessarily dragging the eviction petition and are not leading their evidence especially when learned counsel for the landlords has mentioned that earlier the tenants had tried to seek transfer of the case then filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to implead some other person and then an attempt was made to change the counsel. All these activities of the tenants indicate that they do not want to complete the trial and wanted to remain in possession by one reason or the other. In view of these facts that all material pleas have already been taken by the tenants in the original written statements and are barred from leading evidence in their written statements as provided under Order 6 Rule 2 of the CPC, I am not inclined to interfere in the revision petitions as I do not find any error of jurisdiction exercised by the learned Rent Controller in passing the impugned order. Hence, revision petitions are hereby dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) APRIL 28, 2011 JUDGE Vivek