IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 871 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 15th July, 2010 Smt. Krishna Devi … Petitioner Versus Smt. Kamlesh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Naresh Parbhakar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate with Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner-landlady had filed an eviction petition against the respondents-tenants. The Rent Controller, Jind ordered eviction of the respondents-tenants vide order dated 25.01.2007 on the ground of personal necessity of the petitioner-landlady. However, the other grounds for eviction, i.e. non-payment of rent and the tenanted premises having become old and required repair, were not accepted. Aggrieved against the order of eviction, the tenants had filed an appeal. The appellate authority reversed the finding of personal necessity of the landlady vide order dated 05.08.2008 on the ground that necessary ingredients to seek such a relief had not been pleaded in the eviction petition. The appellate authority held that the landlady had not pleaded that the accommodation, where she was residing, was insufficient and she had not vacated such building without sufficient cause, after commencement of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’). Civil Revision No.871 of 2009 The petitioner-landlady preferred the present revision petition against the order dated 05.08.2008. An application has also been filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC with a prayer that the petitioner may be permitted to amend the eviction petition and to incorporate the following pleadings in the end of its para No.3(iv): “that the petitioner is not occupying any other building in the Urban Area of Jind in her own right and further the petitioner has not vacated such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of Act in the said Area.” In support of his prayer, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in ‘Banke Ram v. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi’ 1977 AIR (Punjab) 158 to contend that the provisions of CPC are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act but its principles will be applicable. To fortify this submission, it has been further urged that regarding the amendment in pleadings of eviction petition, no legal proposition can be laid and the Court, considering the facts of each case, can allow such amendment. Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a decision rendered by a Single Bench of this Court in ‘Muneshwar Dass v. Sham Lal’ 1979 (1) Rent Control Reporter 595 to say that his case is squarely covered by the ratio of law propounded in Muneshwar Dass’s case (supra). A perusal of the judgment rendered in Muneshwar Dass’s case (supra) reveals that in similar circumstances, the landlord could not plead the necessary ingredients of the Act in the eviction petition. In that case, this Court while allowing the amendment in the eviction petition, had held that the amendment can be made by the Court at any stage and such an amendment will cause no prejudice to the tenant. 2 Civil Revision No.871 of 2009 Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate appearing for the respondents, has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Hon’ble the Apex Court in ‘Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Another v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji & Others’ 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 481 to contend that once the trial commences, the amendment cannot be allowed, as the concerned party seeking the amendment has to prove that in spite of the due diligence, the matter could not be raised before the commencement of the trial. Counsel for the petitioner in response to the judgment relied by counsel for the respondent, has urged that the amendment is necessary, as essential ingredients could not be pleaded due to inadvertence and the mistake was bonafide. Considering the entire conspectus of the case, this Court is of the view that the landlady cannot be put to disadvantage. Hence, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed and judgments of two Courts below are set aside. The petitioner is permitted to make amendment in the eviction petition and the matter is hereby remanded back to the Court of Rent Controller, which shall permit the respondent- tenants to file a written statement and shall proceed with the trial thereafter. The parties shall cause their appearance before the Rent Controller on 6th August, 2010. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 15, 2010 rps 3