JUDGMENT

Archana Puri, J.

CM-6976-CII-2023

Present application has been filed for placing on record the affidavit and document Annexure P-13.

2. In view of the averments made in the application, same is allowed and the aforesaid document is are taken on record.

Main case

3. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by learned Rent Controller, thereby, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners-defendants (tenants) for making the amendment of the reply to the main petition, on the basis of subsequent events.

4. The facts, as culled out, from the paperbook, are that, respondent-plaintiff (landlord) had filed the eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 against the present petitioners-tenants, in November 2015, for seeking eviction of the petitioners, on the ground of non-payment of rent, subletting and for personal necessity of himself as well as his family members.

5. In the said petition, it was averred by the respondent-landlord that he requires the demised premises for his family members i.e. his children have grown up and require separate rooms, study room and guest room.

6. In pursuance of the notice issued, the petitioners-tenant had made appearance and had filed reply, thereby, denying the assertions as made in the eviction petition. During the course of the proceedings, earlier also, the petitioners-tenants had filed an application for seeking amendment in the written statement, on the basis of subsequent events and the same was denied by the learned Rent Controller. But however, CR-5223-2022 filed by the petitioners, was allowed, vide order dated 15.11.2022, copy whereof is Annexure P-5.

7. Thereafter, again, another application, copy whereof is Annexure P-6 was filed, thereby, seeking amendment of the written statement, on account of subsequent events. In the aforesaid application, it was pleaded that during the pendency of the eviction petition, the landlord had got vacated the premises from the tenants i.e. Richa Oberoi and Ravi Bhatia, on the ground of personal necessity. Also, it was further averred that landlord has let out Flat No.1, having three shops to one Purvak Sharma, Proprietor of M/s Pandit Ji Da Chuhla and a rent deed has also been executed by the landlord. If the landlord bonafidely required the demised premises, he would not have let out the said three shops recently, on rent to the aforesaid tenant. It is also stated that landlord has concealed the material facts from the Court as it came to the notice of the tenants that the landlord is owning a building No.2540/1, measuring 92.80 sq. yards, situated at Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana. The tenants have come across the property tax return of the aforesaid property. Thus, in view of the subsequent events, as referred aforesaid, a prayer was made for amending the written statement, by way of addition of preliminary objection No.12, in the same.

8. The respondent-landlord had filed the reply, thereby, disputing the maintainability of the application and also asserted about the application to be mere abuse of process of law and that it had been filed only for delaying the proceedings. Whenever, the case is fixed for arguments, the tenants file false and frivolous application. It was asserted that the other tenant vacated the premises in their possession and the eviction petition filed against those tenants, has been withdrawn. It was also denied that the rent deed was executed or that if the landlord had bonafide requirement of the demised premises, he would not have let out three shops, as alleged. Besides the same, it was also pleaded in the reply that the evictio