Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.
Ram Gopal Verma (Since deceased) Th. LRs – Petitioner
Versus
Anoop Singh – Respondent
CR No. 1866 of 2017 (O & M)
Decided On : 27-03-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Hemender Goswami.
The main legal point established is that subsequent events can be brought on record, and a liberal view should be taken on amendment applications, especially when the landlord's entitlement and potential prejudice are at stake.
Headnote:
Amendment - Ejectment Petition - Change of Landlord's Status - Amendment allowed to bring subsequent events on record and change in landlord's status as NRI in Canada - Court justified the amendment based on liberal view and potential prejudice to landlord if not allowed
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the Act, alleging that the tenant was not entitled to contest as the landlord had obtained NRI status in Canada. The tenant contested, claiming that the landlord did not have NRI status at the time of filing the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court allowed the amendment application to bring on record the subsequent change in the landlord's status as an NRI in Canada, justifying that the amendment was sought at an initial stage and the liberal view should be taken on the amendment application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the landlord's amendment to bring on record the change in his status as an NRI in Canada was justified and whether it would prejudice the tenant.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that subsequent events can be brought on record, and a liberal view should be taken on the amendment application. It also noted that the landlord would be prejudiced if the amendment was not allowed, as eviction can only be ordered from one of the buildings once in a lifetime.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition, justifying the amendment to bring on record the change in the landlord's status as an NRI in Canada.
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.
1. The present revision petition, filed by the tenant, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 20.10.2016 (Annexure P1), whereby the amendment application in the ejectment petition, filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the Act) by the landlord, has been allowed, subject to Rs. 2000/- as costs.
2. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that by virtue of the said amendment, a change of stance has been taken by alleging that the landlord has got a W1 category work permit in Canada and has also been granted permanent residency status at a subsequent stage, which he did not have on the date of filing of the ejectment petition. Therefore, by virtue of the amendment, he has filled up the lacuna, as such. It is submitted that on account of the fact of not falling under the definition of Section 2(dd) of the Act, leave to contest has been granted on 27.08.2013 (Annexure P3) and CR-5820-2013 had been dismissed as withdrawn on 04.07.2014 (Annexure P4). It is, thus, submitted that the tenant, as such, would be gravely prejudiced as the landlord has improved his case by virtue of the said amendment.
3. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the stand of the respondent, in a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act, was that he had gone to Canada for an uncertain period on a student VISA and thereafter, had been given a work-permit and had attached copy of the relevant documents. It was his case that he was holding a Indian Passport and working as a worker in Canada. On contest being raised under Section 18-A by the petitioner-tenant, the Rent Controller had noticed that the VISA issued to the landlord was for a specific period, from 23.04.2009 to 30.03.2012 and not for a uncertain period and accordingly, leave to contest was allowed on 27.08.2013.
4. Resultantly, in the application for amendment dated 22.07.2015 (Annexure P5), the following amendment has been sought:
“(a) That in para no. 1 of the petition the words starting from "Initially he went on student Visa" and ending on "work in Canada" need to be deleted and are required to be replaced by the following words:-
Initially the petitioner went to Canada on student Visa and the petitioner has since completed his studies long back. The certificate issued by the Institute from the petitioner has completed his studies is attached herewith. Thereafter the petitioner was granted the work permit and as such he started working as W1 category worker. The copy of the relevant document showing that the petitioner worked as W1 category worker is attached. The plaintiff is holding Indian Passport bearing no. G-9554173. The petitioner went to Canada for uncertain period for the purpose of taking up vocation and also for studies. The petitioner had been working as a worker in Canada. However now in view of the stay of the petitioner in Canada and also his work experience the Govt. of Canada has granted the permanent residency status to the petitioner. Therefore now the petitioner is a permanent resident of Canada. However he continues to enjoy the status of being an NRI and his permanent residency in Canada further supports and fortifies his claim that he is an NRI and that he is residing in Canada for an uncertain period and he had also gone to the said country for an uncertain period. The requisite documents showing that the permanent residency status and that has been granted to the petitioner are attached herewith.”
5. A perusal of the above-said would go on to show that during the pendency of the eviction petition, subsequent events have happened whereby the status, as such, of the landlord has changed. The said facts have been sought to be brought on record. It is settled principle that subsequent events can always be brought on record as the Court is to adjudicate on the merits of the case, as has been held in Mrs. Surinder Kaur Bakshi vs. M/s
