Sushil Kumar Jain vs Manoj Kumar & Anr

3. The landlords/respondents have filed an ejectment proceeding in respect of the Main Gate and Covered First Floor of Shed No. 771, Industrial Area, Phase-II, 1 Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the "demised premises"). This ejectment proceeding has been filed under section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restrictions Act (in short, the "Act"), in which under paragraph 2 the appellant has been described as a tenant in respect of the demised premises. In view of the controversy raised before us, it would be appropriate to produce paragraph 2 of the said petition, which is, as hereinunder:

4. Be it mentioned herein that this is a paragraph, which has sought to be amended that has resulted in controversy between the parties. The appellant has entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the material allegations made in the said petition under Section 13 of the Act. So far as the statements made under Paragraph 2 of the ejectment proceeding is concerned, the appellant made the following averments:

5. During the pendency of the ejectment proceeding under Section 13 of the Act, more precisely, on 6th of June, 2008, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was filed by the appellant, praying for an amendment of the written statement stating inter alia that there was inadvertently some confusion and misstatement of facts which needed to be rectified and that the proposed amendment was necessary for adjudication of the real matter in controversy. The amendment sought for clearly stated that there are three different portions under one tenancy and not different portions under different tenancies, which can be evident from the original written statement filed by the appellant. By filing the application for amendment of the written statement, the appellant sought deletion of the words "under different tenancies", what was sought to be removed was the contradiction and confusion having been raised in the written statement which was never intended to be an admission. The appellant further alleged that by amendment he sought to explain and adopt a different and inconsistent plea in the written statement. However, it would be appropriate for us to 3 reproduce the amendment prayed for which is in the following manner :

6. The learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, rejected the application for amendment of the written statement inter alia holding that if such amendment was allowed, the appellant would be permitted to withdraw his admissions made in the original written statement, which is not permissible in law. The High Court affirmed the order of the Rent Controller similarly holding that the appellant shall not be permitted to withdraw the admission made in the original written statement and accordingly, rejected the Civil Revision case.

13. In view of our discussions made hereinabove and applying the principles laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions, we are therefore of the view that the High Court as well as the learned Rent Controller had acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in not allowing the application for amendment of the written statement of the appellant.

16. In view of the aforesaid decision and in view of the admitted fact that not even the issues have yet been framed, documents have not yet been filed, evidence has not yet been adduced, we are of the view that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has no manner of application as the trial has not yet commenced.

17. Accordingly, the impugned order of the High Court as well as that of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, is set aside. The application for amendment of the written statement is thus allowed. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh, is directed to permit amendment of the written statement and, thereafter, proceed with the hearing of the eviction proceeding. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh is directed to dispose of the ejectment proceeding within six months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it.

18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.