Amendments to pleadings are permissible if they clarify the real controversy, even at the trial stage.

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the tenant-petitioners challenging the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala whereby the application for amendment of the ejectment application filed by the landlord-respondents was allowed. The tenant-petitioners have also prayed for quashing the rent proceedings pending before the Rent Controller.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 10.05.2017 the landlord-respondents filed an ejectment application seeking eviction of the tenant-petitioners from the premises in dispute on inter-alia the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal bonafide necessity. The tenant-petitioners filed the written statement on 14.07.2021 and the matter was adjourned to 28.07.2021 for rejoinder, if any, as well as for framing of issues and for tendering of rent. On 28.07.2021 the landlord-respondents moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the ejectment application seeking to add ground (iv) for eviction of the tenant-petitioners. The said ground (iv) sought to be inserted reads as under :

"(iv) That the respondents have acquired property number 179/4,11Q, adjoining Saraswati service center, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt, which building is reasonably sufficient for the requirement of the respondents in the urban area of Ambala Cantt."

On 16.03.2023 the tenant-petitioners filed their reply to the amendment application. Vide the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 the Rent Controller accepted the amendment application. Hence, the present revision petition by the tenant-petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioners would contend that the Rent Controller erred in allowing the amendment application. According to counsel the amendment has no relevance to the eviction proceedings as the ground sought to be raised is not a ground for eviction available under the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 . It is argued that the amendment application was filed at a belated stage and would change the nature of the dispute. Lastly it was argued that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to decide the ejectment application since the premises in dispute belong to the Municipal Committee and are therefore exempt from the provisions of the .

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioners.

5. In the present case the landlord-respondents had originally filed the ejectment application seeking eviction of the tenant-petitioners on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal bonafide necessity. By the amendment the landlord-respondents sought to also take up a ground that the tenant-petitioners have acquired some other property which is reasonably sufficient for their requirements. It was averred that that the landlord-respondents were earlier unaware that the tenant-petitioners had purchased the other property and had started business in the newly acquired shop and therefore could not take the aforementioned ground in the ejectment application. The counsel for the tenant-petitioners has not been able to point out anything to show that the landlord-respondents were actually aware about the existence of the other shop with the tenant-petitioners when the ejectment application was originally filed by them. There is no inflexible rule that a cause of action arising subsequent to the filing of the ejectment application cannot be added by way of an amendment. However, the availability of the additional ground of eviction to the landlord-respondents would be examined by the Rent Controller on the basis of the evidence available on the record and the law applicable thereto. The argument