JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J. (Oral)

CM-6278-CII-2023

Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions.

Main case

Revision herein is for setting aside order dated 15.02.2023passed by Ld. Rent Controller, Sangrur, whereby application filed by revisionists seeking amendment of written statement, was dismissed.

2. Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the instant petition.

2.1. Respondent No.1 Rohit Garg filed an eviction petition (Annexure P-1) under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 against the present revisionists and respondent Nos.2 and 3 for eviction from the shop in dispute situated at Bhawanigarh on the grounds of non-payment of rent and for bona fide personal necessity. In the eviction petition, it was stated that the shop in dispute was taken on rent 30-32 year ago by Subhash Chand (husband of revisionist No.1 and father of revisionist No.2) from Hari Ram Garg. Subsequently, the ownership of said shop has been succeeded by respondent No.1 and his brother Sahil Garg on the basis of a registered Will dated 22.02.2018 of their grandfather Hari Ram Garg, who expired on 12.03.2018.

2.2. Upon notice, revisionists appeared and filed their written reply, wherein they took various preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the eviction petition. Further, the existence of landlord and tenant relationship with respondent No.1 and said Sahil Garg was categorically denied on account of existence of other legal heirs as well as pending civil suit instituted by one Ramesh Kumar Garg @ Ved Prakash challenging the Will dated 22.02.2018, on the basis of which respondent No.1 was claiming title of the shop in question.

2.3. In reply, it was unambiguously stated that said Subhash Chand used to pay rent to Hari Ram Garg and after his death to his sons and in pursuance of the same arrangement Ramesh Kumar Garg @ Ved Prakash got a blank cheque of Rs.4400/- from Subhash Chand on the pretext that the name will be filled later on as per discussion with his brothers but later on filled the name of Rohit Garg and Sahil Garg on the said blank cheque whereby Subhash Chand paid rent uptil September, 2018 to Ramesh Kumar Garg@ Ved Prakash. Thereafter present revisionist No.2 paid an amount of Rs.19,000/- on account of rent to said Ramesh Kumar.

2.4. Respondents No.2 & 3 herein (daughters of said Subhash Chand) filed separate written statement, wherein while reiterating the averments in the written statement of present revisionists, it was clarified that Subhash Chand had taken the shop on rent 30-32 years ago @ Rs.400/- per month from Hari Ram Garg in the year 1986-87 and from time to time the rent was enhanced by parties with mutual understanding and in the year 2017-18, the rent was Rs.1100/- per month.

2.5. During pendency of present proceedings, as a consequence of legal proceedings of injunction suit initiated by respondent No.1 Rohit Garg, revisionists came to know that although respondent No.1 had alleged in his application that the shop in dispute had come to him and to Sahil Garg under the alleged Will dated 22.02.2018 executed by his grandfather Hari Ram Garg but said Hari Ram Garg was not competent to execute and to get registered the alleged Will of the shop in dispute and of adjoining property mentioned in the alleged Will dated 22.02.2018, as the entire said property is under the ownership of Dera Girdhari Dass and is a part of land comprising in Khewat No.1203/1182, as per Jamabandi for the year 2018-19. Thus, in order to bring true factual matrix before Ld. Rent Controller and in order to clarify and elaborate the submissions regarding payment of rental amount, the present revisionists filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC