JUDGMENT

Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.

This order shall dispose of two petitions titled above, as similar facts and issues are involved therein. These petitions have arisen out of proceedings of two ejectment petitions, filed in respect of two different shops, forming part of same premises, in the same circumstances. Shop No.1 was rented out to Jagdish Chander (petitioner in CR-4101 of 2024); whereas shop No.10 was rented out to Suresh Kumar (petitioner in CR-2759 of 2024), by the same landlord, i.e. Shri. DigamberJain Panchayat Mandir. In both the petitions, landlord sought the ejectment amongst other grounds, on the ground of bonafide necessity.

2. Petitioners before this Court are the appellants-tenants before learned Appellate Authority, Hisar and they are aggrieved by the similar order dated 03.04.2024 (Annexure P-1), whereby their applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in their respective written reply to the petitions, have been dismissed during the pendency of their rent appeals bearing Nos. RA/823 of 2018 and RA/182 of 2019.

3. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as landlord and tenants. Facts are being noticed from CR N: 4101 of 2024.

4.1 The landlord Shri. Digamber Jain Panchayat Mandir, Jahajpul, Hisar filed two petitions under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 against tenants Jagdish Chander and Suresh Kumar seeking their eviction from demised shop Nos.1 and 10 as per details given in the petitions (Copy Annexure P-2). One of the grounds for seeking ejectment is the bonafide need of the landlord. It was pleaded that there are 10 shops in one lane in the premises of the landlord temple opening towards the road side, including the demised shops and all these shops are in possessions of different tenants and that the landlord requires all these 10 shops for constructing Tyagi Bhawan/Sant Niwas for stay of hermits, Sadhus, Munis etc.

4.2 The petition was resisted by the tenant by filing reply (Annexure P-3). After framing of issues and taking necessary evidence, the ejectment petitions was accepted by learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 12.01.2018 (copy Annexure P-4).

4.3 Against this ejectment order, the tenant filed appeal on 15.02.2018 before the Appellate Authority, Hisar and during the pendency of the appeal, moved an application on 04.12.2023 (copy Annexure P-5) seeking amendment of the written statement.

4.4 It was pleaded that there is a huge double story building with basement in the precincts of the Mandir and a school under the name of 'Bhagwan Parshav Nath Digamber Jain School' was being run in the said basement; whereas its ground floor and first floor were in possession of the Mandir. During pendency of the appeal, school was closed w.e.f. 01.07.2019, as per letter dated 04.03.2020 written by Shri. Rajiv Jain, Secretary of the Mandir to the Block Education Officer, Hisar and now the area of the basement, on which the school was earlier being run is in possession of the Mandir, which area is more than 10 shops and that in view of this subsequent development, the projected need of the landlord has eclipsed and so, by way of the amendment in the written statement, the tenant wanted to plead these subsequent events.

4.5 After taking the reply (copy Annexure P-6), wherein the landlord opposed the application, learned Appellate Authority by way of the impugned order dated 03.04.2024 dismissed the application.

5. Assailing the aforesaid orders, it is contended by learned counsel that the reasoning given by the Appellate Court to reject the amendment applications is fallacious, as subsequent events are required to be brought to the notice of the Court in order to show that the need of the landlord has eclipsed and that by rejecting the application, the case of the tenant has been prejudiced. It is also contended that in another case titled "Shri. Digamber Jain Panchayat Mandir v. Sandeep Kumar Parik" in respect of another shop in the same