-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (258)

CR No. 7375 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.02.2025 Kulwinder Singh @ Kulbinder Singh …Petitioner Vs Babu Meat Wala @ Prem Sagar …Respondent AND CR No. 7376 of 2018(O&M)

Kulwinder Singh @ Kulbinder Singh …..Petitioner Vs.

Madan Mohan Mittal and another …..Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aryaman Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner (s) ( in both petitions).

Mr. Sumit Sinha, Advocate for respondent (in CR No. 7375 of 2018).

Mr. Chandan Deep Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2 (in CR N. 7376 of 2018).

****

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

This judgment shall dispose of the afore-titled two revision petitions, both directed against order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the Court of learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, vide which applications in two eviction petitions under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) for amendment of the eviction petition were dismissed. The facts are being derived from CR No.7375 of 2018.

2. The petitioner-landlord-Kulwinder Singh instituted a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘Rent Act’) for eviction of the respondent-tenant from a store (details of which were given in the eviction petition) situated on Roshan Road, Hoshiarpur on the grounds of non-payment of rent and bona fide necessity. After evidence of both sides had concluded, an application (Annexure P-4) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the eviction petition was filed. It was averred in the application that due to an inadvertent mistake in the end of Para 2, it had been averred that the petitioner landlord was owner of a shop in Premgarh Market, but the same was not suitable for his business whereas actually there were 13 shops owned by him and his brothers namely Onkar Singh and Narinder Singh and that all those shops were on rent. Certain consequential amendments were also sought to be made. The application was resisted by way of reply (Annexure P-5). By way of the impugned order, the application was dismissed leading to the filing of the present revision petitions.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner (s) has strenuously urged that the Court of learned Rent Controller erred in dismissing the application for amendment. He further submits that the application was not filed on account of any mala fides but only to clarify the matter as in the eviction petition, it had been mentioned that the petitioner-landlord owned some shops in Premgarh Market and it has only with a view to clarify the said fact, that the application was moved. He submits that in any case the amendment would not cause any prejudice to the respondents. In support of his contentions, he relied upon judgments of this Court in Jaswir Singh Jawanda and another Vs. Suraj Parkash, 2008 (58) RCR (Civil) 49, Chhaju Singh Sulekh Ram Family Trust, Khanna through its Managing Trustee, Chhaju Singh (deceased) through his LRs Vs. Baljinder Singh, 2017(1) RCR (Rent) 539, Sohan Lal Bagga Vs. Mohd. Sayeed, 2017() R.C.R (Civil) 154, Yakub Ali Vs. Rubi and others, 2011 (1) RCR (Civil) 129, Jit Singh Vs. Smt. Rajwant Kaur, 2001 (2) R.C.R (Rent) 588 and Satpal and another Vs. Harish Kumar, 2023(2) RCR (Civil) 652

5. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No. 2 in CR No. 7376 of 2018 submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller as the only endevour of the petitioner- landlord was to fill up the lacuna. Refernce has been made to the written statement (Annexure P-2) and the averments made therein have been pointed out. It has also been submitted that after the entire evidence of both sides had concluded, the application for amendment was moved. He submits that under the circumstances, no error was committed by the learned Rent Controller by dismissing the application.

6. I have