Mr. Deepak Sibal J. (Oral):- Through the present petition, challenge is made by the petitioner-tenant to order dated 26.09.2017 passed by the Rent Controller, Sultanpur Lodhi through which an application filed by him under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed. Through such amendment, the petitioner sought to plead that the initial agreed monthly rent between the parties was Rs.1000/- and not Rs.2500/- as alleged by the respondents.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, the facts which have emerged and need to be noticed for adjudication of the matter are that in May 2013, the respondentlandlords through a petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 sought eviction of the petitioner from a shop duly described in the eviction petition (for short ‘the tenanted premises’). In paragrahs No.1 and 2 of such petition, it was specifically averred as under:-

“1. That the shop in dispute marked as ABCD and shown in Red in the site plan attached, as fully described in the head note of the petition is situated at Mohalla Shah Sultan, Sultanpur Lodhi and the said shop is integral part of a building comprising of total 7 shops. The land underneath said 7 shops was purchased by the petitioners vide sale deed dated 05.05.1992 executed by one Jaimal Singh son of Satnam Singh son of Kishan Singh resident of Sultanpur Lodhi for a sale consideration of Rs.62500/- and after purchasing the same the petitioners got constructed seven shops over there and said shops were rented out to various tenants. At present shops No.1 to 6 are in possession of some different tenants, whereas shop No.7 marked as ABCD and shown red in the site plan attached is in possession of respondent as a tenant under the petitioners. Initially the shop in question was rented out to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs.2500/-. However, in the year 2008 with the mutual consent of the parties it was agreed that the rate of rent shall be enhanced @ 15% per annum every year w.e.f. 01.01.2009. However, the respondent failed to pay the due agreed rent w.e.f. 01.01.2009 and he is in arrears of rent since then and he is also liable to pay the house tax as well as the electricity charges w.e.f. 01.01.2009 amounting to Rs.18175/-.

2. That the respondent has paid rent to the petitioners only upto 31.12.2008 but he has not paid the rent of the shop in question to petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.2009 onwards @ Rs.2500/- per month with increase @ of 15% per annum, alongwith the house tax and electricity charges, inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the petitioners.” (emphasis supplied)

3. A perusal of the afore-quoted paragraphs of the eviction petition show clear and specific pleadings by the respondents that initially the tenanted premises had been rented out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs.2500/-; in the year 2008, with the mutual consent of the parties, it was agreed that the rent shall be enhanced @ 15% per annum w.e.f. 01.01.2009; the petitioner had paid rent to the respondents only upto 31.12.2008 and that the petitioner had not paid the rent w.e.f. 01.01.2009 @ Rs.2500/- per month alongwith the agreed annual increase of 15% as also house tax and electricity charges.

4. In the written statement, though the petitioner denied the alleged agreement between the parties with regard to the increase of the rate of rent @ 15% per annum w.e.f. 01.01.2009, the initial agreed rate of rent between the parties @ Rs.2500/- per month was not denied. In fact, in reply to paragraph No.2 of the eviction petition, the petitioner stated that it was incorrect that the petitioner had paid the rent to the respondents only upto 31.12.2008 and thereafter had not paid the rent at the agreed rate of Rs.2500/- per month along with non-existent increase @ 15% per annum along with house tax and electricity charges.

5. Paragraphs N