JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition assails the order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Court of Rent Controller, Nabha, vide which the application moved by the petitioner-tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), seeking amendment in the written statement was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that the respondent-landlords instituted a petition (Anneuxre P-1) under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act') seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from a shop situated at Sadar Bazar, Nabha on the grounds of non-payment of rent, personal necessity and the shop having been rendered unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

3. Written statement (Annexure P-2) was filed opposing the grounds of eviction.

4. During the pendency of the eviction petition, an application was moved by the respondent-landlord for getting the shop inspected by a building expert. In the meantime, the petitioner-tenant filed an application (Annexure P-5) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement. It was averred that while examining the file, it had come to the knowledge of the petitioner-tenant that on 14.01.2024, the respondent-landlord had threatened his son on phone and had later come to the tenanted shop along with his partymen and had damaged the Chobara on the tenanted shop. Video clips and photographs were attached with the application. It was also averred that when the cross-examination of the respondent-landlord was being carried out, the said photographs had been put to him and he had admitted his presence and presence of his partymen at the Chobara on the tenanted shop. He also admitted that there is a back gate to reach the Chobara. It was also averred that an application had also been moved to the police with regard to the alleged incident but the police did not take any action. The petitioner-tenant wanted to introduce the said fact in the written statement.

5. The application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-6) in which it was averred that the application was not supported by any affidavit and the application had been moved on the 8th date for the cross-examination of the respondent-landlord. It was averred that even in the cross-examination, this fact was not clearly put and the written statement was also filed after the said date. It was averred that such pleas could not be permitted to be introduced.

6. By way of the impugned order, the application was declined leading to the filing of the instant revision petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the amendment would be essential for the just decision of the case. He further submits that the law as regards amendment of written statement is much more liberal than that pertaining to the amendment of plaint. He further submits that the eviction petition is at the very initial stage and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent-landlord if the amendment is permitted to be made. He submits that landlord had, in fact, himself admitted the said fact in his cross-examination by admitting his presence in the photograph.

9. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-caveator has opposed the prayer stating that such averments which were aimed at filling up the lacuna cannot not be permitted. It has been argued that a suit for injunction had also been filed by the petitioner-tenant which was decreed on 22.05.2025 on a statement having been given by the respondent-landlord that the petitioner-tenant would not be evicted except in due course of law. He submits that even in the said suit, this issue was never raised.

10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

11. In the written statement, which was filed on 29.06.2024, no incident of 14.01.2024 was mentioned. It was n