IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7576-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision: 07.01.2025 Sharad Aggarwal ...Petitioner Versus Manjit Kaur ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner (Through Video Conferencing)

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside/quashing of order dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Rent Authority vide which the Rent Authority had dismissed an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had taken several points at the time of filing an application for leave to contest, which was filed on 09.03.2018, however inadvertently in the reply filed by the petitioner-tenant to the petition under the Rent Act, all the said points could not be taken. It is submitted that it was only at the time of preparing the evidence of the tenant that the said mistake came to the notice of the counsel and accordingly, an application was moved for amendment of the written statement. It is submitted that vide order dated 25.11.2024, the said application has been dismissed illegally and the said order deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement deserves to be allowed. 3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order dated 25.11.2024 is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed.

4. It is not in dispute that the respondent had filed a petition under Section 24 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 to recover the immediate possession of the premises on the averments that she was a Non-Resident Indian and was owner of the premises in question. The petitioner had filed an application dated 09.03.2018 for leave to defend and vide order dated 23.07.2019, leave was granted to the petitioner to defend and immediately thereafter, a detailed reply was filed by the petitioner to the rent petition, which has been annexed as Annexure P-4 along with the paper book. The issues in the present case were framed on 18.11.2019 (Annexure P-5) and the landlord/respondent had led her entire evidence and had closed her evidence on 22.07.2024 (Annexure P-6). The case was thereafter adjourned to 01.08.2024 for leading evidence of the tenant- present petitioner. The tenant-present petitioner instead of leading evidence, moved the application in question under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written reply and in para 4 of the said application, it was pleaded as under:-

“4. That due to sheer inadvertence, over sightedness, human error and typographical mistake, the said written reply consisted of certain inherent mistakes which came to the knowledge of the respondent/applicant yesterday while preparing the evidence and the present application is being filed without any inordinate delay.”

5. A perusal of the above pleadings would show that the plea raised by the petitioner for seeking amendment was on account of inadvertence/over sightedness etc. It is not in dispute before this Court that all the pleas which were sought to be raised in the said application were available to the petitioner at the time of filing of the original reply and prior to framing of the issues which were framed on 18.11.2019. The respondent-landlord had opposed the said application by filing a detailed reply (Annexure P-8) in which it was stated that the trial had already commenced and the application had been filed only to delay the proceedings and in case the said application was allowed then, the same would result in de novo trial.

6. The Rent Controller, vide impugned order dated 25.11.2024 had dismissed the said application and observed that the trial had already commenced and as per proviso to Order