JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral) - This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the learned Rent Controller allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the ejectment petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that by way of the present amendment the respondent-landlord is seeking to fill in the lacuna in his case inasmuch as in the ejectment petition an essential ingredient that his wife had not vacated any such building in the urban area concerned without any sufficient cause had not been pleaded. It is further the contention that this was a fact well within the knowledge of the respondent-landlord and, hence, the amendment ought not to have been allowed. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed in Arjun Chand Vs. Smt. Shama Joshi [2011(44) RCR (Civil) 874] to contend that the amendment could not have been allowed to fill in the lacuna in the case.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the case is still at the initial stage and issues yet to be framed. It is further the contention that the proposed amendment is only explanatory in nature and would not change the tone and tenor of the ejectment petition in any manner. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment in the case of Hari Krishan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kalra & Anr. [2020(2) RCR (Rent) 1] to contend that amendment incorporating the basic ingredient of Section 13(3)(a)(i) would cause no prejudice to the tenant. It is further being contended by the learned counsel by relying upon the judgments in Rahul Jain Vs. Prahlad Singh [2014(4) RCR (Civil) 965] and M/s Bhatia Cloth House Vs. Dr. Raj Kumar Gupta & Anr. [2008(2) RCR (Rent) 281], that even in case there is any defect in the pleadings with regard to the essential ingredients of personal necessity, the same would not be fatal to the petitioner and can be rectified immediately on such an objection being raised. It is further the contention that the same could also be made good by way of evidence, which would be duly considered by the Court.

4. Heard.

5. In the present case, admittedly, the ejectment petition is still at the very initial stage inasmuch as issues are yet to be framed. In the ejectment petition the landlord-respondent has sought the eviction of the tenant-petitioner on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of himself and his wife and in the petition it has been mentioned that he has not vacated any such building in the urban area concerned without any sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. However, he had not pleaded that his wife had also not vacated any such building in the urban area concerned without any sufficient cause. The only amendment now sought is for adding the following sentence at the end of para 5(i) :

'Smt Kiran Gulati wife of the applicant No.1 has also not vacated any building in the urban area concern without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act-III, 1949 in the urban area concern nor she is occupying any other building in the urban area concern."

6. Reliance placed by the learned counsel in the case of Arjun Chand (supra) would be of no avail inasmuch as the same is distinguishable on facts. In the said case the eviction petition had been filed on 21.11.2004 and the written statement was filed on 03.05.2005 and both the parties led their respective evidence. It is only at the stage of final arguments that an application for amendment was moved. In the present case the application has been filed at the very initial stage.

7. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents in case of Hari Krishan (supra) is applicable to the present case with full force. In the said judgment it was held as under :

'The Rent Controller while allowing the application has relied upon the judgment of this Cou