IN THE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 06.02.2025 Gopi Ram ....Petitioner VERSUS Parveen Kumar and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the respondents.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Rent Controller whereby the application filed by the tenant-petitioner for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed.

2. A few facts necessary for deciding the present revision petition may be noticed. The landlord-respondent filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide personal necessity on 27.03.2019. The written statement was filed on 26.08.2019. Present application for amendment of the written statement was filed on 18.08.2023 at the stage when the evidence of the tenant-petitioner was going on. Subsequently, the evidence of the tenant-petitioner was closed by order. In the amendment application it was stated that the tenant-petitioner wanted to add a legal objection, which reads as under :

“4. That the present eviction application is not maintainable as the applicant is not the absolute owner of building bearing MC No.4448 including the shop in dispute and is a co-sharer. No eviction application can be filed by a co-sharer alone.”

Further, the following para was sought to be added at the end of para 6(ix), which reads as under :

“It is further submitted that during the pendency of the present eviction application the landlord Parveen Kumar has reconstructed one bigger shop forming part of building bearing MC No.4448 by demolishing and including the stairs which were adjoining to the above said shop and now he is running business in the above said bigger shop along with his son, which shows that the ground of personal necessity of renovating/demolishing the entire building and constructing a new building/Show Room/Hall is nothing but a mere fanciful wish of the applicant/landlord and not actual need of the applicant/landlord. It is further submitted that since the landlord has reconstructed and renovated part of building bearing MC No.4448, then it shows that the entire building is in a stable and strong condition. However, in case landlord wants to renovate the remaining portion of the building bearing MC No.4448, then the same can be done without damaging or disturbing the demised shop. It is submitted that the applicant alone has got no right to file the present application on the ground of demolishing the entire building and reconstruct the same, as he alone is not the owner of entire building No.4448 rather he is only a co-

sharer along with his son and wife.”

3. Reply was filed to the said application and vide the impugned order the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed by the tenant-petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner would contend that during the pendency of the ejectment petition certain renovations have been made by the landlord-respondent to the area in his possession and he is carrying on business with his son in the said premises and hence the bonafide necessity of the landlord-respondent no longer exists.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the landlord-respondent would contend that the amendment application itself is totally bereft of any details as to when these facts came to the notice of the tenant-petitioner inasmuch as the amendment sought is that renovation had been carried out in the adjoining shop, to the shop which is in possession of the petitioner-tenant himself and that the construction, if any, was being carried out under the nose of the tenant-petitioner who has not even bothered to give a date as to when the said construction was made. It is urged that the tenant-petitione