Judgment

Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Rent Controller whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of the ejectment petition has been allowed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that S.C. Bhalla, the owner of the premises in dispute, filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rent Act’) for eviction of the petitioner herein from the entire first, second and third floors of SCO No.22, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh on the grounds of sub-letting, personal necessity, material alteration, impairing the value and utility of the premises, ceased to occupy and non-payment of rent. During the pendency of the ejectment petition, S.C. Bhalla, the original owner, died and thereafter his legal representatives were impleaded as parties. After being impleaded as parties, the legal representatives moved an application for amendment of the ejectment petition for pleading his own bona fide personal necessity. Respondent No.1 herein wanted to add para 10-A after para 10 to state that he did not own and possess any other commercial property in the urban area of Chandigarh and has not vacated the same and also wanted to substitute para No.11 that since the petitioner herein has not paid the arrears of rent qua the premises, so the cause of action is still continuing. The amendment application was allowed vide the impugned order dated 04.03.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the ejectment petition was filed on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of S.C. Bhalla and after his death, in case respondent No.1 herein wanted to plead his own bona fide personal necessity, a separate ejectment petition would be required to be filed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyawati Vs. Man Mohan , 1996 (2) Rent LR 214.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has contended that subsequent events can be taken into account and the legal representatives of the deceased landlord can prosecute the ejectment petition on the basis of their own personal need in substitution of the need of the deceased landlord. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Kedar Nath Agrawal (Dead) Vs. Dhanraji Devi (Dead) by LRs. 2004 (2) RCR (Rent) 498; Rajinder Singh Vs. Satinder Kaur & Ors. 2015 (1) RCR (Rent) 427; Naresh Paul Vs. Usha Rani & Ors. 2010 (9) RCR (Civil) 342; Ramesh Kumar Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. 2010 (59) RCR (Civil) 155 and Vijay Kumar Vs. Sham Lal through LR Karan Sachdeva , 2019 (2) RCR (Rent) 621.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case, originally the ejectment petition was filed by S.C. Bhalla who expired during it’s pendency. Thereafter, the legal representatives of S.C. Bhalla were impleaded and the legal representative i.e. respondent No.1 herein, by way of the amendment application, sought to incorporate that he required the premises for his own bona fide personal necessity. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that for the said purpose a separate ejectment petition would have to be filed deserves to be rejected in view of the settled law.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedar Nath Agrawal (supra) has held as under :

“33. Conjoint reading of clause (a) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (7) of Section 21 makes it clear that where