JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order0 dated 22.08.2024 vide which the application for amendment filed by the petitioners (LRs of tenant / alleged sub tenant) has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted the amendment, which the petitioners are seeking, is only to elaborate the defence taken in the written statement and the same would neither alter the defence nor introduce a new defence. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, the application for amendment of the written statement should have been allowed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of "State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Modern Tent House & Anr." reported as 2017(8) SCC 567.

3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

4. It is not in dispute that respondent no.1-Jai Bhagwan Mittal had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 for ejectment of the petitioners along with that of Raj Kumar and Deepak, both sons of Hari Ram, from the shop in question. The said eviction petition was filed on 16.08.2016. The plea raised in the said petition with respect to subletting was detailed in paragraph 4(b). Paragraph 4(b) of the said petition is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"4. That the respondents are liable to be evicted from the said Shop on the following grounds:

xxx xxx xxx

b) That the respondents No. 1 to 3 have sublet the shop in dispute to respondent No. 4 without consent of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 is doing his own business of General Merchant in Shiv Colony, Jind. Respondent No. 2 is also doing his own business in Shiv Colony, Jind. The respondent No. 3 is doing his business in Chori Gah, Rohtak Road, Jind. The respondent No. 4 Sub Tenant is in exclusive possession as sub tenant under the respondent No. 1 to 3 and doing his business."

5. Thus, it was the case set up by present respondent no.1 that the present petitioner no.1 (respondent no.3 before the Rent Controller), who was the son of Hari Ram, was doing business in Chori Gah, Rohtak Road, Jind and petitioner no.2 (respondent no.4 before the Rent Controller) was sub-tenant, who was in exclusive possession as sub-tenant under respondents no.1 to 3 (before the Rent Controller) and was doing his business in the premises in question.

6. On 13.02.2017, a joint written statement by all the respondents (tenants/ alleged sub-tenants) was filed. Paragraph 4 (b), where the plea of sub-tenancy was opposed, is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"(b) That sub para-No.4(b) of the petition is absolutely wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied to allege that respondents No.1 to 3 have sublet the shop in dispute to respondent No.4 without consent of the petitioner. It is also wrong and denied to allege that respondent No. 1 is doing his own business in Shiv colony, Jind. It is further wrong and denied to allege that respondent No.2 is also doing his own business in shiv colony, Jinx [sic.] or that respondent No.3 is doing his business in Chauri Gali Rohtak Road Jind. It is specifically wrong and denied to allege that the respondent No.4 is sub tenant and is in exclusive possession as sub tenant under the respondent No. 1 to 3 and doing his business. Respondent No.4 is not in possession of the shop in dispute in any capacity and he has no concern and connection with the shop in dispute nor he is sublettee of respondent No.1 to 3 and he is not carrying on any business sin [sic.] the shop in dispute. The respondent No.2 Deepak son of Hari Ram is carrying on and running his business of sale purchase of utensils in the shop in dispute under the name and style of Janta Bartan Store, Jind