The main legal point established in the judgment is that proposed amendments to an ejectment application under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 must be necessary for the proper and just decision of the case, and unnecessary amendments may unnecessarily delay the trial.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - Heard through video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Rent Controller, Pathankot dismissing the amendment application filed by the landlady-petitioner.

3. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that in July 2013 the landlady-petitioner filed an ejectment application under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the tenant-respondent seeking his eviction from the shop in dispute. The grounds for eviction raised were non-payment of rent since July 2012 and bonafide need and requirement. According to the landlady-petitioner the shop was needed for the requirement of her daughter, Mrs. Jeevan Jyoti Kaur, who had become a widow at a young age and was living with her mother and intended to open a beauty parlour. The tenant-respondent filed a reply and contested the ejectment application.

4. On 31.07.2015 the evidence of the landlady-petitioner was closed. On 29.07.2016 the landlady-petitioner filed an application (Annexure P-2) for amendment of the ejectment application so as to include a paragraph about her daughter not having vacated any such shop in Pathankot after the commencement of the Rent Act though such an averment about the landlady-petitioner was there in the ejectment application. The tenantrespondent filed a reply (Annexure P-3) and contested the amendment application. Vide impugned order dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure P-4) the Rent Controller dismissed the amendment application. Hence, the present civil revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the landlady-petitioner contended that the amendment sought was only to include the mandatory requirements of the Rent Act where ejectment was being sought on the ground of personal necessity. He submitted that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the case nor cause any prejudice to the tenant-respondent. Lastly, he submitted that the landlady-petitioner and her daughter were both widows and were willing to pay costs to the tenant-respondent. In support of his case he cited Ajit Singh vs. Jit Ram [2008(4) RCR Civil 390], B.K. Aggarwal & Anr. vs. Avinash Grover & Ors. [2015(1) RLR 19], Ashok Kumar Jog vs. Vidya Rani & Ors. [2012(4) PLR 470], Sunil Badhan vs. Tarsem Singh [2011(2) LAR 660] and Sukhwinder Singh vs. Darshan Lal [2014(2) RLR 64].

6. Counsel for the tenant-respondent vehemently contested the submissions made on behalf of the landlady-petitioner. He stated that the amendment sought was highly belated and the amendment application was moved when the trial had ended and the case was reserved for orders.

7. According to him the amendment was aimed only to fill-up the lacunae in the case and to nullify the arguments raised by the tenant-respondent to the ejectment application. He relied upon the decision by the Supreme Court in Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Anr. vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors. [2006(12) SCC 1].

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook.

9. Para 5 of the ejectment application (Annexure P-1), in which the amendment is sought, reads as under :

'That the respondent is liable to ejectment from demised premises on the following grounds :

a) That the respondent has not paid the arrears of rent in respect of demised shop @ Rs.360/- per month since July 2012 without any reasonable cause.

b) That the applicant requires the demised shop for the bonafide need and requirement of her daughter Mrs. Jeevan Jyoti, who has also lost her husband and is widow at the young age and has also been neglected by her in-laws and has permanently come to live with her mother. The applicant is very old and generally remain sick and is not in a position to live alone without any help and she also needs the support of her daughter. Mrs. Jeevan Jyoti, the daughter of applicant has got the expertise of running a beauty parlour and initially requires two shops to s