JUDGMENT

Mr. Namit Kumar, J.

Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/tenants seeking setting aside of order dated 12.04.2019 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby the application filed by them under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amendment of their written statement, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that respondents/landlords filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for eviction of the petitioners/tenants from the entire bay No.845 on the ground floor of SCO No.845-846, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh, on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent by the tenants. Petitioners filed written statement to the eviction petition. Thereafter, due to non-appearance of the petitioners before the Rent Controller, ex parte eviction order was passed against them on 18.03.2016. Petitioners moved an application for setting aside of ex parte eviction order before the Rent Controller, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.08.2017. Thereafter, petitioners filed a petition being Civil Revision No.6312 of 2017 before this Court for setting aside of ex parte eviction order dated 18.03.2016, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 21.02.2019 and the Rent Controller was directed to decide the matter afresh from the stage immediately before passing of the ex parte order dated 18.03.2016. Thereafter, on 28.03.2019, petitioners filed application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amendment of their written statement, which has been dismissed by the Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 12.04.2019.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is factually perverse, illegal and erroneous as the Rent Controller failed to appreciate that there are subsequent facts, events and payment of rent between the period w.e.f. 12.01.2012 to 31.01.2013. The payment of rent was voluntary by the petitioners, which was accepted by the respondents. He further contended that earlier the denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was on account of the fact that respondents were having a leasehold property from the Chandigarh Administration and the same was cancelled in the year 2002, thus, the respondents ceased to be lessor and there was no relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties. He further contended that the present amendment is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter and effectively deciding the controversy between the parties. He further contended that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by way of present amendment. It is further submitted that in any event, Courts are not required to go into the merits of the amendment.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the application of the petitioners has rightly been dismissed by the Rent Controller. They further contended that issues have already been framed and respondents/landlords have led their evidence in affirmative. They further contended that petitioners have specifically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant as a result of which the provisional rent was not assessed and now after a long time petitioners cannot be permitted to take u-turn. They contended that application was filed only to delay the proceedings and the same has rightly been dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able-assistance perused the record.

6. The impugned order dated 12.04.2019 whereby application for amendment of written statement has been rejected, reads as under: -

"10. Present petition was