Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2127

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
Deepak Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
Sukhcharanjit Singh Thind – Respondent
CR NO.3031 of 2022(O&M)
Decided On : 09-11-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate; For the Respondent

Pleadings in eviction cases under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act should be interpreted liberally, allowing for additional issues to be framed based on the substance of the claims rather than exact phrasing.

Headnote:(A) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 13 - Eviction proceedings - The Rent Controller allowed the framing of an additional issue regarding the property being unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The tenant contended that new grounds could not be introduced in replication; the court emphasized that sufficient pleadings existed to support the eviction claim. (Paras 8-12)

(B) Pleadings - The court ruled that the absence of specific phrases in the eviction petition did not preclude the landlord from seeking eviction based on the condition of the property. (Paras 10-14)

Facts of the case:
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant based on non-payment of rent and personal use, later introducing the issue of the property being unfit for habitation.

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the tenant's arguments, affirming the Rent Controller's decision to allow the additional issue.

Issues: The main issues were whether new grounds could be raised in replication and if the absence of specific phrases in the eviction petition affected the landlord's claim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the pleadings should be construed liberally, allowing for the introduction of specific phrasing in replication to clarify existing claims.

Result: Revision petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral)

This common order of mine shall dispose of CR No.3031 of 2022 titled as Deepak Kumar v. Sukhcharanjit Singh Thind and CR No.3108 of 2022 titled as Pardeep Kumar and another v. Sukhcharanjit Singh Thind as similar facts and controversy are involved therein. For reference, facts are being taken from CR No.3031 of 2022.

2. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been made to an order dated 04.07.2022 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby an additional issue has been framed on an application filed by the Respondent-landlord.

3. Briefly stating, the Respondent-landlord filed a petition on 24.05.2019, seeking eviction of the Petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises i.e. shop No.3 forming part of property No.B.XX.2594 and BXX.2595, situated at Bhai Bala Chowk, Ferozepur road Ludhiana. Written statement to the same was filed by the Petitioner-tenant followed by filing of replication by the Respondent-landlord with the permission of Rent Controller on 07.01.2020. Even a rejoinder to the said replication was filed on behalf of the Petitioner-tenant.

4. Upon consideration of the pleadings, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:-

"[a] Whether the Respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on account of non payment of arrears of rent? OPP

[b] Whether the Respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of personal use and occupation? OPP

[c] Whether the petition is bad for partial ejectment? OPR

(d] Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPR

[e] Relief."

5. Immediately thereafter, on 06.12.2021, the Respondent-landlord filed an application for framing of additional issue to the following effect:-

"Whether the property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation? OPP"

6. The Petitioner-tenant opposed the prayer made in the aforementioned application having filed detailed reply.

7. The Rent Controller vide order dated 04.07.2022, allowed the prayer made in the application filed at the instance of Respondent-landlord, thereby framing following additional issue:-

"2(A). Whether the property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation?OPP"

8. Impugning the aforementioned order dated 04.07.2022, learned counsel for the Petitioner-tenant submits that an eviction under the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred as 1949 Act') can be sought only on the grounds enumerated under Section 13 thereof and unless and until, those are specifically pleaded in the eviction petition, no order of eviction can be passed for merely having raised an additional or new plea or ground been set up in the replication. He further submits that the sole purpose of filing of replication is to explain the defence stand taken in the written statement and not to raise any new or additional plea, or to add any other prayer or ground therein as the remedy for adding any new prayer or ground is only by seeking amendment of the original pleadings i.e. the eviction petition. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon Arun Kumar Guru v. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd., 2001(3) CivCC 114 and Swaran Kaur v. Harjit Singh, 2000(2) CivCC 477. The relevant paragraph No.11 from Arun Kumar Guru's case (supra) and paragraph Nos.7 and 8 from Swaran Kaur's case (supra) as referred by learned counsel for the Petitioner-tenant are reproduced hereunder:-

Arun Kumar Guru's case (supra)

"11. In the opinion of the Court, rejoinder is not for raising a fresh plea which was not raised in the writ petition. It is basically to explain something which may become necessary in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit which may be something not arising from any averment made in the writ petition. If new facts are to be brought on record or a relief other than what was originally claimed, is to be included, then the proper course is to amend the writ petition and not go on fi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document