IMPORTANT POINT
Proposed amendment of written statement which has no bearing on controversy to be determined in the lis cannot be allowed.

L.N. Mittal, J.—Nitin Mehra - respondent no.1 before Rent Controller has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 09.09.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Rent Controller, Amritsar, thereby dismissing application moved by tenants (petitioner and proforma respondents no.2 to 4 herein) for amendment of their written statement in ejectment petition filed by respondent no.1 landlady under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short - the Rent Act).

2. Respondent no.1 herein - Shashi Seth has filed ejectment petition under the Rent Act seeking ejectment of petitioner and proforma respondents no.2 to 4 (son, widow and two daughters of Tilak Raj Mehra) from disputed shop no.327/XII-3(old) and new No.28, situated at Amritsar on the ground that landlady is in bona fide requirement of the demised shop for expansion of business of her sons. The landlady and her sons are already in occupation of adjoining shop no.326.

3. Tenants moved application Annexure P-1 for amendment of written statement to plead that after filing of the present ejectment petition, the landlady has sold two shops bearing no.328 and no.329 to one Manjit Singh (tenant thereof) and his sons vide sale deed dated 22.01.2010. In the said sale deed, the landlady also stated that she is in possession of land of khasra no.4//10/1 min. towards South of the two shops, which were sold. Accordingly, the tenants want to plead by amendment that landlady and her sons already have other sufficient property for their business. Other ancillary averments are also sought to be made by way of amendment. The amendment application has been dismissed by learned Rent Controller vide order Annexure P-2, which is under challenge in this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

4. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that need of the landlady is not bona fide because during pendency of the ejectment petition, the landlady has sold two shops. It was contended that being subsequent event, the tenants should be allowed to plead the same by way of amendment of the written statement. It was also contended that Court, at this stage, should not go into the correctness or falsity of the plea sought to be taken by amendment and should not record finding on merits of the said plea. It was also submitted that amendment of pleading, which is necessary for proper adjudication of the lis, should be allowed. Reliance in support of these contentions has been placed on two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court namely Om Parkash Gupta vs. Ranbir B. Goyal, 2002 (1) R. C. R. (Rent) 150 and Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others v. K. K. Modi and others, 2006 (2) R. C. R. (Civil) 577 and also on two judgments of this Court passed in the cases of Ashok Kumar v. Mohinder Pal Singh and another, 2008 (1) R. C. R. (Civil) 772 and Surjit Kaur and others vs. Shanti Devi, 2011 (1) R. C. R. (Civil) 131.

5. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. There is no dispute with the proposition that amendment of pleading arising out of subsequent event can be allowed. There is also no quarrel with the proposition that amendment of pleading, which is necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties, should also be allowed. It is also correct that at this stage, the Court is not required to look into correctness or falsity of plea or merits or demerits thereof. However, these propositions of law do not come to the assistance of the petitioner herein. It is petitioner’s own case that the two shops, which have been sold by the landlady during the pendency of the ejectment petition were already on rent with Manjit Singh - one of the vendees. Consequently, the said shops were not available to the landlady and her sons for expansion of their business. In this view of the matter, the proposed amendment of written statement by tenants would be completel