JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral) -

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 06.03.2019, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide which the application filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (for short 'CPC') for amendment of the eviction petition was allowed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that an eviction petition was filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act , 1995 (for short 'the Rent Act') for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from SCO No.85-86, Sector 17, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the demised premises') on the ground of personal necessity as he intended to open a multi-utility mall.

3. The respondent-landlord claimed to have become co-owners to the extent of 16.6% share in the demised premises on the basis of a family settlement. It was claimed that the petitioner-tenant was a tenant on the ground floor (front side portion) of the demised premises. The tenancy was a monthy tenancy. The petitioner required the demised premises for his personal use and occuption for running multi-utility Mall. It has been averred that the petitioner did not own or possess any other non-residential/commercial property for the said purpose. Under the circumstances, the petition was filed.

4. The eviction petition was opposed by the petitioner-tenant. In the written statement, a preliminary objection was raised that the petitioner was a tenant in the demised premises vide lease deed dated 20.09.1991 and the area under occupation of the petitioner-tenant was one complete Bay on the ground floor measuring 17 x 80 feet, mezzanine floor measuring 17 x 80 feet and complete basement measuring 34 x 80 feet. It was claimed that the said premises had been taken on rent from one T.S.Madaan, Satwant Kaur Madaan and their son Deshvir Singh Madaan. Other preliminary objections were also raised. The rate of rent was claimed to be Rs.18,500/- per month which had been increased to Rs.22,916/- per month. It has been averred that the petitioner No.1, through petitioner no.2, had handed over the vacant physical possession of the demised premises to the petitioner on 09.04.2014 and respondent-company was not in occupation of the demised premises and the entire rent stood paid. It was also claimed that the petitioner-tenant was not in arrears of rent.

5. During the pendency of the eviction petition, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved by the respondent-landlord for amendment of the eviction petition. It was admitted in the application that the petitioner-tenant was a tenant on the ground floor, mezzanine floor and basement and accordingly, the heading and prayer clause of the rent petition was sought to be amended. It was averred that the said amendment would not change the basic character of the eviction petition.

6. The application was opposed by the petitioner-tenant. In the reply, preliminary objections regarding maintainability were raised. It was averred that in view of the categoric averments made in the written statement to which no replication had been filed, the application would not be maintainable. It was also averred that petitioner No.1, through petitioner no.2, had handed over the vacant physical possession of the demised premises to the petitioner on 09.04.2014 and respondent was not in occupation of the demised premises and the entire rent stood paid. It was averred that the case was fixed for respondent's evidence when the application for amendment of the eviction petiti