C.R NO. 2899 OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R NO. 2899 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 09.10.2009 Punjab Wakf Board ...Petitioner versus Indian Red Cross Society and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate, for respondents No.2,3,5 and 8. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 26.03.2009, whereby an application filed by the defendant-respondent for amendment of the written statement, was allowed. The defendant-respondent has sought amendment in the written statement so as to add preliminary objections. One preliminary objection which is sought to be added, is that the Wakf Board is not the owner of the suit land, whereas the defendant claims to be a tenant. Therefore, as per provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the defendant cannot be evicted. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. C.R NO. 2899 OF 2009 -2- Another amendment is to make additions in para 3 of the preliminary objections. It is, inter-alia, to the effect that the suit property which is Wakf Board property does not vest with the Wakf Board. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not competent to institute any proceedings and only Mutawali of the Wakf is competent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the defendant has admitted that it was inducted as a lessee of the petitioner, therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to withdraw the admission made by him in the written statement regarding lease created by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. The said argument of the petitioner is in respect of ownership of Wakf Board and maintainability of the present petition, who is said to be a protected tenant. Since the defendant has admitted the factum of lease executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, the defendant cannot be permitted to dispute the title of its landlord. Consequently, the said amendment was wrongly allowed by the learned trial Court. By virtue of the amendment, the defendant cannot be permitted to withdraw the admission of the lease created by the plaintiff. Consequently, the insertion of preliminary objection is declined. The order passed by the learned trial Court to this extent is patently illegal and unwarranted. C.R NO. 2899 OF 2009 -3- The additions to para 3 of preliminary objections are legal in nature. Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly stated that no evidence is required to be led on such preliminary issue. In view of the said fact, I do not find any reason to disallow the amendment so as to make additions in para 3 of the preliminary objections. In view of the above fact, the revision petition is partly allowed. The order allowing the addition of a preliminary objection is set aside, whereas the respondent is permitted to make additions in para 3 of the preliminary objection with a condition that the respondent shall not be entitled to lead any evidence on said amendment permitted so ordered to be incorporated. The revision petition stands disposed of. OCTOBER 09, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) shalini JUDGE