Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PARMOD GOYAL, J
RAJ KISHOR AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
HARDEV KAUR ATWAL AND ANOTHER – Respondent
CR-6934-2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Divesh Nagar, Mr. Lovepreet Singh
For the Respondents:
The application to amend pleadings post-trial should demonstrate due diligence and necessity, particularly in eviction proceedings where ownership does not determine landlord status.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Amendments in pleadings - The petitioners sought amendments to their written statement, claiming a change in ownership and challenging the landlord-tenant relationship; however, the Rent Controller dismissed the application, finding no requisite due diligence or necessity for amendment post-trial commencement. (Paras 2, 4, 10)
(B) Eviction Proceedings - The definition of 'landlord' extends to non-owners; thus, ownership implications do not affect landlord-tenant dynamics in eviction cases. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners-tenants challenged a dismissal of their application for amendments in their written statement, claiming ownership changes and seeking to sever the landlord-tenant relationship. The amendments were sought late in the proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The Rent Controller correctly noted that ownership issues were not relevant to eviction proceedings and that the proposed amendments served only to delay the trial.
Issues: Main issues concerned the necessity and relevance of the amendments in the context of ongoing eviction proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the proposed ownership changes did not affect landlord-tenant relationships and emphasized the need for timely amendment applications to avoid undue delays in justice.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for amendments filed by tenants. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. discussion of amendments' relevance in eviction case. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. validity of ownership claims in tenant-landlord relationship. (Para 5 , 8 , 9) |
PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)
The present revision petition has been preferred by petitioners-
tenants (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioners-tenants') being aggrieved by order dated 05.09.2025 (Annexure P-5) vide which application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was dismissed.
2. Petitioners-tenants are seeking following amendments in their written statement in paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 9, which are reproduced hereunder:-
Para 3 "Moreover, recently it has also came to the knowledge of the applicant/respondent that Surinder Singh who was owner of the suit property to the extent of 50%, during his life time on 07.10.2011 executed a General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney, Agreement to sell and a Will in favor of Mr. Alok Gupta, Manju Gupta, Lalit Gupta and Anil Gupta. The applicant/respondent was paying the rent to Mr. Surinder Singh and thereafter to Mr. Ashok Gupta and others.
Para 4 The suit property was resumed vide order dated 09.07.1982 passed by the then Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh. After passing of the resumption order by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh the ownership of the property vest with the Chandigarh Administration/Estate Office. On the resumption of the property by the Chandigarh Administration, the landlord-tenant relationship is severed and the landlord's ownership rights are also terminated. Any existing lease rights or agreement between the landlord and tenant becomes null and void and further the agreements between the owner and the government is effectively cancelled. It is worth mentioning that during the lifetime the co-owners of the property namely Swaran Singh, Surinder Singh, Sohan Singh and Albel Singh, did not challenge the said resumption order dated 09.07.1982. The resumption order continued and ultimately Mr. Albel Singh lost his right of ownership in the suit property due to the continuity of the resumption order dated 09.07.1982. Further the said order was challenged only by the petitioners in the year 2007 before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh by way of the appeal, which was also dismissed vide order dated 17.06.2008 further the revision petition No.91 of 2008, challenging the order dated 17.06.2008 was also dismissed by the Advisor to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh vide order dated 17.02.2008. The said order is also under challenge in the CWP no.21786 of 2008 which is still pending adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court.
Para 9 Moreover, there is no WILL by the alleged Alber Singh in respect of the suit property in the names of the petitioners. Once there is no such WILL in respect of suit property in favor of the petitioners and there is no order declaring the petitioners as the owners of the suit property, on the basis of the said alleged WILL, by any competent court of law, so the petitioners otherwise also have no right to execute the said alleged General Power of Attorney in name of Jaswinder Singh Bahia, qua the suit property. Otherwise also the said alleged GPA is illegal, fabricated, procured, null and void and is not enforceable under the law."
3. However, learned Rent Controller after considering the nature of amendments being sought as noted above, had concluded that neither the amendments are required for decision of present case nor petitioners- tenants have shown their due diligence as present application has been preferred at the stage of final arguments.
4. The principal of law regarding amendments of pleadings is not in dispute. The Courts are liberal in granting amendment of pleadings prior to commencement of trial and even after commencement of trial if the amendment is required for just and effective decision of the case. However, if the amendment is being sought after commencement of trial
