Late applications for framing additional issues are inadmissible if they merely aim to prolong proceedings and fill gaps in evidence.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

By way of present revision petition, order dated 17.08.2023 passed by learned Rent Contoller, Bathinda has been challenged by the petitioner-tenant (respondents before learned rent controller), whereby application filed by him for framing of additional issues was dismissed.

2. Facts leading to the filing of the present revision are that; Shree Sanatan Dharm Mahabir Dal (regd.), Bathinda through its President (being applicant) filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The basic grounds for filing the ejectment application are: (i) material alteration done by the respondents-tenants ; (ii) non payment of rent; and (iii) Sub-letting;. The said application for ejectment was instituted way back in the year 2018 and thereafter, both the sides have led their evidence. However, at the stage of final arguments respondents-tenants proposed to frame some additional issues.

3. Originally, vide order dated 24.04.2019, the issues were framed by learned Rent Controller

The copy of the order dated 24.04.2019 is produced by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-landlord in the Court today and same is taken on record. For the purpose of convenience, the same is reproduced as under:

' Present:Sh. N.M. Aggarwal, Adv. Counsel for the applicant.

Respondent No.1 exparte.

Sh. JG Goyal Adv, counsel for Lrs of respondent No.2.

Harjinder Singh s/o Harjit Singh has suffered statement that he is ready to pay Rs. 6237/- of provisional rent as per order dated 02.04.2019 to applicant.

Charanji Lal Garg has also suffered statement that Ghula Singh was the tenant of petitioner DalAfter that his son Davinder Singh was the tenant; Respondent Harjeet Singh and their sons Harjinder Singh & Ravinder Singh were never the tenants of petitioner dal; They were all sub-tenants; Sub-tenants have no right to tender rent; He does not want to accept this tender money.

From the pleadings of the parties following issues are framed:

'1. Whether the applicant is entitled for ejectment of respondents from demised shop under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the eviction application has not been filed through competent authorized person? OPR.

3. Whether the application is not maintainable in the present form?OPR

4. Whether the applicant has no cause of action to file the present application? OPR.

5 Whether the applicant has no locus standi to file the present application? OPR.

6. Whether the applicant is e-stopped from filing the present application by his own act and conduct? OPR

7. Whether the application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR.

8. Whether the eviction application is filed on false ground on the basis of false documents? OPR

9. Whether the eviction application of applicant is false, vexatious and frivolous? OPR.

10. Relief.'

No other issue arises or pressed. Now to come up on 07.05.2019 for evidence of applicant. Applicant is directed to tender all his affidavits on next date. List of witnesses be filed within a week, failing which applicant shall not be entitled to any assistance of this Court.'

4. After leading of the evidence by both the sides, respondents-tenants proposed following additional eleven issues:

'(i) Whether the applicant is a registered charitable, social, religious society having its bye laws and constitution? OPA

(ii) Whether Sh. Chiranji Lal Garg is duly authorized competent person of applicant Dal on the basis of resolution dated 26.05.201