JUDGMENT

Ms. Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the landlord seeking setting aside of order dated 02.05.2018 passed by learned Rent Controller, Malerkotla (Annexure P4) vide which Petitioner's application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") for amendment of ejectment application, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits:

a) that petitioner had wrongly mentioned in his ejectment application (Annexure P-1) that respondent/tenant had paid rent of demised shop up to 30.01.2015 and had not paid rent of the same since 01.02.2015 whereas, in actual fact, respondent had paid rent up to 30.01.2005 and arrears of rent were due from 01.02.2005;

b) that respondent in his reply to the petitioner's application has stated that he has paid rent up to 30.01.2017 and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if petitioner's application is allowed;

c) that said error in ejectment application (Annexure P1) is on account of typographical error and therefore, amendment ought to be allowed. In support, learned counsel relies upon judgment of this Court in Jagjit Singh v. Mohinder Pal (P&H) Law Finder Doc ID # 19569 and Gurpreet Singh v. Dalip Kaur (P&H) Law Finder Doc ID # 606076.

3. In response, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent:

a) that once the petitioner has made categoric statement/averment in the petition, she cannot wriggle out of the same;

b) that respondent has paid rent up to 2017 and vide subsequent order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla, even provisional rent has been assessed and respondent has been directed to make payment of arrears of provisional rent from 15.07.2017 to 15.01.2023;

c) that respondent has categorically denied the petitioner's averment and submitted that respondent has paid rent up to 30.06.2017.

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Perusal of record of the case shows petitioner's own averment in Para 4 and 5 of her ejectment petition (Annexure P1) as follows:-

"4. That the respondent has paid the rent of the disputed shop upto 30-1- 2015 and besides this house tax up-to 2000.

5. That the respondent has not paid the rent of the disputed shop from 1- 2-2015 up till now at the rate of Rs.1300/- per month and besides this house tax at the rate of 15% of the monthly rent from the year 2000 to date and interest and costs of the application and as such the respondent is liable to be evicted from the shop in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent."

7. Above pleadings reveal that a specific averment has been made by the petitioner that respondent/tenant had paid rent of demised shop up to 30.01.2015 and had not paid rent of the same from 01.02.2015. It is the submission of the petitioner that the date of 30.01.2015 and 01.02.2015 ought to have been 30.01.2005 and 01.02.2005 respectively and have been wrongly mentioned as 30.01.2015 & 01.02.2015 due to an inadvertent typographical error. In my view, it is odd for a typographical error to occur in cohesive sequence in two consecutive places. If it was a typographical error, it is likely that it would occur at only once place in the Rent Petition and not consecutively in two places.

8. Further, as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Niranjan Kajaria v. Sheo Prakash Kajaria (SC) Law Finder Doc ID # 709988 it has been held as follows:-

"Admission made in pleadings cannot be withdrawn by way of amendment - However, an admission can be clarified or explained and basis of admission can be attacked in a substantive pleadings."

9. Reliance may also be placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly (SC) Law Finder Doc ID # 143517 wherein it has been held as follows:-

"22. What, therefore, emerges from the discussions made hereinbefore is that a categorical admission c