The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment to an eviction petition may be allowed if it does not fundamentally change the nature of the case and is in line with the original grounds for eviction.

JUDGMENT :

Jaishree Thakur, J.

1. This is the civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash impugned order dated 25.09.2017 passed by Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Nakodar, District Jalandhar whereby application filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C, has been allowed.

2. In brief the facts are that the respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of the shop in dispute on the ground that the petitioner is in arrears of rent along with the plea that he requires the shop for his personal necessity to start a separate business. On receipt of notice of the petition, the petitioner filed his written statement on 25.03.2015 to which a replication was filed controverting the stand in the written statement. In the examination-in-chief, it was duly affirmed that the shop in dispute is required by the deponent for his personal necessity to start the business for his grandson Karan Sachdeva. Bharat Bhushan, who had been appointed as general attorney by Sham Lal, the landlord, also stepped into the witness box and affirmed by way of an affidavit that the shop in dispute was required by the landlord namely Sham Lal for his personal necessity for setting up the business of his grandson-Karan Sachdeva. Thereafter, Karan Sachdeva, the grand son also stepped into the witness box and affirmed by way of an affidavit that the premises were required for their personal necessity to start the business as the deponent had completed his education. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, Sham Lal-the landlord died leaving behind his Class-I legal heirs. Thereafter Karan Sachdeva moved an application to be impleaded as a party on the basis of a registered Will executed in his favour, which application was allowed. Thereafter an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed seeking to amend the eviction application and to incorporate the ground that the applicant-Karan Sachdeva required the premises to start his own business. This application was contested by the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the proposed amendment will change the main controversy between the parties and the nature of the petition. It was contended that the ejectment application had become infructuous after the death of Sham Lal and it was argued that the alleged Will, on the basis of which Karan Sachdeva-the applicant is relying upon is forged and a fabricated document. The Rent Controller on appreciation of the pleadings allowed the application on the ground that late Sham Lal had stepped into the witness box and had clearly stated that the disputed premises were required for settling his grandson-Karan Sachdeva which fact had been supported by an affidavit tendered by Bharat Bhushan.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant argues that late Sh. Sham Lal had preferred ejectment petition on the ground of his own personal necessity to start a personal business and he has filed his detailed affidavit on 01.09.2015, which have gone beyond the pleadings to claim that the shop is required to personal necessity to start the business for his grandson. The affidavit filed by Bharat Bhushan-AW2 and Karan Sachdeva-AW3 were also beyond the pleadings and therefore, the same could not be taken into account. It is argued that the newly added legal heir cannot be allowed to create a new ground for his own personal necessity, when it was not a case as set out in the case of ejectment petition. At best the respondent can file a separate eviction petition on the ground of personal necessity, but cannot seek amendment as prayed by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment rendered in Raj Kumar Vij v. Hem Raj Singla, 2008 1 RCR(Civ) 44 to contend that when a landlady is seeking eviction of a tenant on the basis of personal requirement and that need of a family member is not pleaded, in the eve