The court emphasized that applications for amendment should not be allowed when they are highly belated and serve as delaying tactics, especially after the trial has commenced.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J.(Oral) - Under challenge in this revision petition is order dated 18.10.2022 passed by Rent Controller, Ludhiana in a rent petition titled 'Kulwinder Singh and others Vs.M/s Raja Ram Phool Chand and another' vide which he had dismissed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by respondents/tenants seeking amendment of written statement. Such respondents/tenants are revisionists before this Court.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that petitioners had brought an ejectment petition against respondents/tenants on the ground of the premises being required by petitioner No.2 Jasvinder Singh for opening his office as an Advocate. As per the case of the petitioners, such petitioner No.2 Jasvinder Singh was earlier working with his father Sh.Harbhajan Singh in his office at Model Town, Ludhiana, thereafter he wanted to have his own independent office because office of Sh.Harbhajan Singh was not sufficient for the entire staff and requirement of petitioner No.2. Separate ejectment petitions had been filed against M/s Raja Ram Phool Chand and another as well as against another tenant M/s Sokhi Auto Industries on the ground of bona fide need.

3. On notice, the respondents/tenants put in appearance and contested the rent petition contending that there was no bona fide need of the demised premises as claimed in the rent petition. The office of Sh.Harbhajan Singh is enough for use by his son Jasvinder Singh as well. The respondents prayed for dismissal of the rent petition in question.

4. Issues on merits were framed. The parties were afforded opportunities to lead evidence, which they availed of and the case was fixed for arguments. In the meanwhile, the respondents/tenants filed an application for amendment of the written statement claiming that subsequent events have taken place, which have come to the knowledge of respondents recently, therefore those are required to be incorporated in the written statement, for which permission for amendment by the Court is required.

5. According to the respondents/tenants as per knowledge acquired by them Sh.Harbhajan Singh father of Sh.Jasvinder Singh has since expired and Sh.Jasvinder Singh can use the office of his father exclusively and ample accommodation is available there. Therefore, the necessity for getting the respondents evicted from the demised premises no more exists. Furthermore, the other tenanted premises in occupation of M/s Sokhi Auto Industries comprising one big shed and one room total measuring 90 square yards has been ordered to be vacated vide order dated 29.10.2019, which is more than enough for any advocate to run his office. Another assertion made is that an ejectment petition had been filed by petitioners against M/s Kochhar Steel Scrap Company on the ground of personal necessity of petitioner No.1 Kulwinder Singh, however when record of MC, Ludhiana was summoned, it came out that the said shop had come to the share of petitioner No.2 and not petitioner No.1 Kulwinder Singh as falsely claimed in this petition. Therefore, the present petition is mala fide. Furthermore, the partition of property bearing No.497, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana amongst the petitioners has been effected and petitioner No.1 Kulwinder Singh took loan from the bank against his share in the property, though subsequently, he committed defaults and notice under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 was issued and pasted on the property. The petitioners have concealed material facts of partition of joint property amongst themselves. The respondents/tenants wanted to incorporate all those facts, which have come to their notice recently on engaging a new counsel and they were not having knowledge of all those facts when the written statement was filed.

6. The application was opposed on behalf of the petitioners by filing a reply raising various preliminary objections to say that application is not maintainable and is an abuse of