Amendments to eviction petitions under statutory provisions are permissible to rectify omissions and ensure compliance, provided no prejudice is caused to the opposing party.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Rent Controller, Hisar allowing the application for amendment of the eviction petition for making averments in order to comply with the statutory requirement of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act of 1973').

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the landlord/respondent had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1973 in the year 2019 and the issues were framed on 06.07.2021 and even the evidence of the respondent-landlord was closed on 04.03.2022 and it was only on 09.11.2022 when the respondent- landlord had filed an application seeking amendment for incorporating the averments with respect to the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act of 1973. It is further submitted that the same was done after the commencement of trial and the same is not permissible as it can not be said that the amendment sought was a subsequent event after the issues had been framed. It is argued that the impugned order vide which the application for amendment has been allowed is illegal and deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the respondent-landlord for amendment deserves to be dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, on the other hand, has submitted that the only amendment which was sought to be made in the petition was in order to meet the mandatory provision of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act of 1973 and for the said purpose, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. It is further submitted that in the written statement, no objection had been raised by the petitioners- tenants with respect to the aspect that the said ingredients had not been mentioned in the petition. It is argued that in the written statement, it had also not been stated by the petitioners-tenants that the landlord was actually in occupation of any other premises or had vacated any such premises after the Act came into force. It is further argued that this Court has repeatedly allowed similar applications for amendment and thus, the impugned order is meritorious and deserves to be upheld. In support of his arguments, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in case titled as “Hari Krishan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kalra and another, reported as 2020(2) RCR (Rent) 1 as well as the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case titled as “Rahul Jain Vs. Prahlad Singh”, reported as 2014(4) RCR (Civil) 965 .

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book and finds that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to the upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons detailed hereinafter.

5. The respondent-landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1973, as amended up to date, with respect to ground floor of residential House No.1398, measuring 150 sq. yards, situated at Sector 13-P, Hisar. Para 3(ii) of the said petition is reproduced herein below: -

“3. That the respondents are liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the following grounds:-

xxx xxx xxx (ii) That the petitioner required the demise premises for his own use, occupation and necessity. There is no property stands in the name of petitioner in the urban area of Hi