The court considered the significance of proper pleadings, the allowance of rejoinder, and the impact of a compromise between the parties in reaching its decision.

Gokal Chand Mital, J.

1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the application for the amendment of the replication deserves to be allowed. There are some decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court saying that in such matters supervening facts can always be taken notice of by the Court in deciding the case. In this case, the facts, which came into being after the filing of the ejectment petition, were noticed by the Courts below but they could not be properly protected because of the want of pleadings on behalf of the landlord and for that reason even whole evidence could not come on the record. Keeping that proposition in view, the application for amendment of the replication is hereby allowed. The landlord has already filed the amended replication.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant is right in suggesting that his client should be allowed to file rejoinder to the amended replication so that his client may be able to take the pleas available to him. Since this prayer is reasonable, the learned counsel for landlord could not seriously oppose it.

3. In this view of the matter, this matter is remitted to the Rent Controller and the parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 10.6.1986. The tenant is directed to file his reply to the amended replication on 10.6.1986 before the Rent Controller. If for any reason, the tenant is not able to file the reply on that date, only one more opportunity would be granted to the tenant for doing so. Thereafter, the new matters covered by the amended replication would be enquired into by the Rent Controller by giving opportunity to the landlord to lead evidence in affirmative and to the tenant in rebuttal. Similarly, in case reply to the amended replication is filed, any new matter covered thereby, would be enquired into by the Rent Controller by giving opportunity to the tenant to lead evidence in affirmative and to the landlord in rebuttal. The Rent Controller will send the evidence recorded by him along with the records of the case to this Court. The report be submitted by him to this Court within six months of the filing of the reply to the amended replication.

4. The records of the Rent Controller along with the amended replication be sent to the Rent Controller forthwith so as to reach there before the date fixed.

Sd/- Gokal Chand Mittal,

Judge.

May 23, 1986.

ORDER DATED-21ST JANUARY, 1988

5. This order may be read in continuation of order dated 23rd May, 1986. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the matter went back to the Rent Controller and it started recording evidence. On 5.1.1987 the parties arrived at a settlement and their statements were recorded by the Rent Controller. First of all V.K. Chopra tenant made the statement admitting the personal necessity of the landlord and according to the compromise, he sought one years time to vacate the premises on 5.1.1987. He also paid the rent upto 5.1.1988 to obtain possession. Thereafter, the statement of the landlord was recorded and he accepted the statement of the tenant. Then the Rent Controller passed the following order :-

"When the case was fixed for the evidence of the respondent, parties have compromised the matter. Statement of Shri V.K. Chopra and Prem Raj recorded. Obviously, this Court cannot pass any order because the file is pending in revision before the Honble High Court. Let the file be sent to the Honble High Court as such."

Because of the compromise arrived at the Rent Controller dropped the proceedings pursuant to the order of remand and has sent back the statement of the parties and the proceedings taken by it.

6 By this application the landlord seeks an order for disposal of the revision in terms of the compromise.

7. Notice of this application was given to the counsel opposite. He has not appeared. Accordingly, I proceed to decide the matter in the absence of the respondents.

8. I have gone through the statements