Judgment :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15th of July, 2008 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 3700 of 2008, by which the Civil Revision case filed by the tenant/appellant was rejected, affirming the order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, by which the Rent Controller had rejected the application for amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "the CPC") filed by the appellant.

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, 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:

"Paragraph 2: Respondent is a tenant in respect of premises describable as Main Gate and Covered First Floor of Shed No. 771, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh."

"Paragraph 2: That Paragraph 2 of the petition is also admitted to be correct. It is however submitted that the respondent is occupying other areas of 771 Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh as well under different tenancies."

So far as the other statements made in the ejectment proceeding are concerned, the appellants denied the allegation made therein and sought for rejection of the ejectment proceeding.

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 reproduce the amendment prayed for which is in the following manner :

"4. That in para 2 of the reply the word "under different tenancies" be deleted.

5. That para 3 of the reply be substituted with the following paragraph :-

That para 3 of the petition as stated is not correct and is thus, denied. It is, however, admitted that the respondent came in the premises initially in an area of 15 X 45 facing main road on a monthly rent of Rs.5000/-. Subsequently, in the year 2003 more portion was added, i.e. main gate faving Taj Furniture and the First Floor and the rent of all the three portion was agreed to be Rs. 7000/-. Rs. 5000/-per month had been paid through payees account ch