The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of due diligence and the necessity to satisfy the jurisdictional factor for allowing the amendment of pleadings after the commencement of trial, as per the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and relevant case laws.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. (Oral) CM-6542-CII-2019

1. Allowed as prayed for.

2. Annexures P-8 and P-9 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

CR-5573-2017

1. This is a Civil Revision that has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the impugned order dated 11.07.2017 whereby, the Rent Controller has allowed the application for amendment of the ejectment petition as well as impugned order dated25.07.2017 whereby, after taking on record the amended ejectment petition, the Rent Controller directly fixed the case for evidence of the respondents without providing opportunity to the petitioners to file the amended written statement.

2. In brief, the facts are that an ejectment petition was preferred on 17.07.2012 under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short 'the Act') on the ground of non-payment of rent, impairment of the building as well as on the ground of personal necessity. Regarding the ground of personal necessity, the following has been pleaded in para 3(f) of the ejectment petition:-

"30 That the shop in question, as detailed in the heading of the petition, is required by the petitioners for their own personal use, necessity and occupation. The requirement/necessity of the petitioners to occupy said rented premises is their personal and bona fide and the petitioners require the said premises to meet the bona fide needs of their family. The petitioners want to set up their business in the shop in question. The petitioners want to open a big mall and general-cum-departmental store/super market in the shop in question and in the adjoining shops belonging to the petitioners. The shop in question along with adjoining shops of the petitioners are situated in the heart of city and are very suitable for the business of shopping mall or general store. The petitioners want to open various types of departmental store in the said shopping mall. Thus, the respondent is liable to the ejected from the said demised premises. A site plan of the shop in question and adjoining shops belonging to the petitioners is attached herewith, which may kindly be read as apart of this petition "

The petitioners-tenants herein filed the written statement dated 06.05.2012 stating therein in para 15 that the ejectment petition did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Act. The respondents-landlords filed a rejoinder to the written statement on 22.01.2013 and replied to the objection taken in para 15 of the written statement, by stating that:-

"75. Para no.15 of the reply as stated is wrong and denied in view of rejoinder given above. It is wrong to state that ejectment petition does not comply with the mandatory requirements of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act"

Thereafter, the Rent Controller framed issues on 22.01.2013, one of the issue being whether petition is maintainable or not, with the onus to prove the same on the petitioners-tenant. Thereafter, one of the respondent-landlord namely Aman Bhatia tendered his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit in evidence and his cross-examination was deferred. He was eventually cross-examined on 31.10.2013. Thereafter, the respondents-landlords did not produce any further evidence and sought several adjournments to do so. Eventually, on 18.10.2016, the respondents-landlords moved an application seeking amendment of the ejectment petition, which was contested by the petitioners-tenants herein by taking the grounds that the amendment is highly delayed and a valuable right had accrued to the petitioners herein.

3. Mr. Rakesh Chopra, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein argued that the Rent Controller has erred in allowing the amendment after almost 03 years 09 months of the framing of the issues and almost 36 opportunities availed to lead the evidence. Aggrieved against the said order, he places reliance upon judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and another vs. Swami Keshavpr