Case: Jaspal Kaur Cheema &amp; Another Vs. M/s. Industrial Trade Links &amp; Others

ts herein filed eviction petition against thefor their eviction from an area of 200 sq. ft. on the ground floor of Industrial Shed No. 93, Industrial Area, Ram Darbar,Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to aser Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for shortAct), on the ground of personal necessity. Thefiled the written statement opposing the eviction petition. After conclusion of the evidence of thets led their evidence. At this stage,moved an application seeking amendment of the written statement for adding the plea that theare not the owners of the premises and that the sole proprietor of the premises was Smt. Raj Nanda and that the eviction is not sought for the bona fide necessity of Smt. Raj Nanda. TheThe Rent Controller dismissed the application vide order dated 25.07.2013. Thechallenged the said order by filing Civil Revision Petition Nos. 3684/2014, 6638/2013 and 7299/2013 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court vide common order dated 21.02.2015 set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller and allowed the amendment application. Thehave challenged the legality and correctness of the said order of the High Court in these appeals.

Court's reasoning:
7. It is not in dispute that thewere put in possession of the premises by theunder the lease deed at Annexuredated 16.05.2006. Thein paragraph (1) of the eviction petition averred that they are the owners and landlords of the premises and that the premises was let out to thethrough a lease deed dated 16.05.2006. In their written statement, thehave not raised a specific plea denying or disputing the ownership of theHowever, there is a general denial of the averments made in paragraph (1) of the eviction petition.The principle of estoppel arising from contract of tenancy is based upon the principle of law and justice that a tenant who could not have got possession but for a contract of tenancy admitting the right of the landlord, should not be allowed to put his landlord in some inequitable situation taking undue advantage of the position that he got and any probable defect in the title of hisdecision also does not deal with the effect of Section 116 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, these decisions have no application to the facts of the present case.In the instant case, it is not disputed by theere put in possession of the premises as tenants thereof by theIn the circumstances, they cannot dispute the title of the landlord in respect of the said premises. The said plea was not raised by them in the written statement. They cannot be permitted to introduce the said plea by way of amendment, that too, at this belated stage. The Rent Controller was, therefore, right in rejecting their application for amendment. In our view, the High Court was not justified in allowing the application of theto amend their written statement.