The court upheld the Rent Controller's decision denying the tenants' amendment request due to lack of evidence substantiating bona fide need, emphasizing the need for timely and justified procedural conduct.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)

1. At the outset, counsel for the petitioners submits that inadvertently, the revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the same may be treated as petition under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

2. Ordered accordingly.

3. Present petition is directed against order dated 10.05.2023 whereby application filed by the respondent, seeking amendment of the written statement, stands declined.

4. The petitioners are tenants, who are facing eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 13 of the 1949 Act on the ground of bona fide need. The proposed amendment reads as under:-

'(i) That one of the younger sons of the petitioner namely Sandeep Khosla has left for Australia along with his family members i.e. his wife and two sons. The said Sandeep Khosla left India about six months ago. It is further submitted that the petitioner-landlord has recently purchased one other building measuring 544 Sq. yds situated at District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar on 13.12.2021. Thus, the petitioner-landlord has got sufficient accommodation in her possession for business purposes and the present ejectment petition has become infructuous and the ground of bonafide need does not subsist anymore. '

5. The aforesaid application has been declined by the Rent Controller vide impugned order, holding that the proposed amendment having no material bearing on the case and for the reason that the same can still be proved by way of evidence, the amendment was not required. The Rent Controller further noted conduct of the petitioners-tenants in moving successive application seeking amendment of the written statement on one pretext or the other and dismissed the application filed by the tenant.

6. Mr. Mehra, counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order submits that the Rent Controller erred in law in ignoring the fact that the bona fide need projected by the respondent-landlord stands materially dented if the proposed amendment is allowed to come on record. The precise ground on which the eviction of the tenant was sought was for the reason that the accommodation was not sufficient and that the landlord wants to settle his sons. Once, it comes on record that one of the younger sons of the petitioner namely Sandeep Khosla has left for Australia with his family and the landlord has purchased another building measuring 544 sq. yards situated at District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, during the pendency of the present petition and rented out the same, the basic ingredients as enumerated under Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of 1949 Act gets hit.

7. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that the conduct of the tenant has already come on record. This is 5th amendment application filed by the tenant and subsequent to the present application, another application has been filed on 06.09.2023 to delay the proceedings.

8. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case.

9. It is not in dispute that earlier the petitioners-tenants sought amendment of the written statement, which was declined and the matter travelled up to this Court in CR No. 1374 of 2020. The same was declined, observing as under:-

'In the present case the tenants-petitioners appear to be adopting dilatory tactics by filing one application or the other. Earlier two separate applications were filed which were subsequently withdrawn and a third application was filed which came to be allowed vide order dated 29.10.2019. Subsequently, when the case was fixed for evidence of the respondent-landlady, the present application has been filed. A perusal of the present application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC appended with the revision petition as Annexure P-5 reveals that the same is totally bereft of any reasoning and totally vague averments have been made in the said application that the sons of the respondent-la