Back
2006 Supreme(P&H) 2856
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
P.S.Patwalia, J.
Suresh Kumar
Versus
Ramesh Kumar
Civil Revision No. 1920 of 2004,
Decided On : JULY 18, 2006
The court emphasized the importance of allowing the amendment to enable both parties to fully present their claims and held that the amendment was merely clarificatory.
Headnote:
Amendment - Rent Control - The court allowed the landlords to amend their petition to incorporate a crucial clause related to the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, noting that it was necessary for a just decision and that the tenant had not provided evidence to show that the landlord had vacated the building prior to the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The landlords sought to amend their petition to include a clause related to the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, which was allowed by the Rent Controller. The tenant challenged this decision, citing a Supreme Court judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendment was aimed at enabling both parties to fully present their claims and was merely clarificatory. The interest of the tenant was secured by requiring the landlord to give an undertaking not to lead further evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the amendment to the petition at a late stage was justified, and whether it was crucial for a just decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendment was necessary for a just decision and was merely clarificatory, as the tenant had not provided evidence to show that the landlord had vacated the building prior to the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no interference was called for.
P.S.Patwalia, J.
1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 22-03-2004 passed by Rent Controller, Samana, whereby the petitioners-landlords (respondents herein) have been permitted to amend their petition by incorporating the line to state that they have not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act in the urban area of Samaria. It has been specifically noted in the order that the petitioners-landlords (respondents herein) have stated before the Court that no further evidence would be led by them on the allowing of the amendment.
2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, however, submits that the amendment could not have been allowed at a stage when the case was ripe for final arguments. For this proposition, he has relied upon a judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others, AIR 1964 SC 993.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the incorporation of this clause was very crucial for just and proper decision of the case. It is pointed out that, in fact, in the evidence of the parties, the tenant (revision petitioner herein) has led no evidence to show that the landlord has vacated any such building within the area of Samana prior to the filing of this petition. The amendment allowed, therefore, is merely clarificatory.
4. I am of the opinion that the order of the Rent Controller allowing the amendment is aimed at enabling both the parties to fully bring out their claims. The amendment in the facts and circumstances of the case is merely clarificatory. Still further the interest of the petitioner-tenant has been secured by asking the landlord to give an undertaking that he will not lead any further evidence.
5. No interference is, therefore, called for.
6. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
