IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-1640-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :- 25.08.2025 Virender Kumar Sethi and Another ....Petitioners VERSUS Rajan Duggal (now deceased) through LRs ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate and Mr. Arjun Sangwan, Advocate for the respondent.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/tenants for setting aside the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller- cum-Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby the application filed by the legal representatives of the original landlord under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the ejectment petition, has been allowed.

2. The brief background is that the ejectment petition was originally filed by landlord Rajan Duggal (since deceased) under the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 for ejectment of the petitioners/tenants from one shop known as Sethi Communication, situated at Mela Singh Chowk, opposite Bata Footwear Showroom, Yamuna Nagar. The grounds pleaded included arrears of rent and the bona fide requirement of the landlord for his personal use and occupation, as he intended to expand his existing photography business by removing the intervening wall between his existing shop and the tenanted premises in order to construct a modern studio.

3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the landlord Rajan Duggal expired on 05.05.2024. Thereafter, his wife (respondent No.1) and daughter (respondent No.2) moved an application to be impleaded as his legal representatives, which was allowed vide order dated 30.08.2024. After being impleaded, the LRs of Rajan Duggal filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the ejectment petition to plead their own bona fide requirement. It was stated that they are carrying on the business of photography in the shop adjoining the demised premises under the name and style of Mehboob Studio with the assistance of Arun Kumar, husband of respondent No.1(ii) and son-in-law of respondent No.1(i), and that they now require the demised premises to expand the same business by removing the intervening wall.

4. The petitioners/tenants contested the application for amendment on the ground that after the death of the landlord, the petition itself had become infructuous, as the original ground of bona fide requirement projected by Rajan Duggal was personal to him and stood extinguished with his death. It was further contended that the proposed amendment would materially alter the nature and cause of action of the ejectment petition, and would virtually amount to introducing an entirely new case, leading to a de novo trial. It was argued that even otherwise, the son-in-law cannot be projected as a dependent for the purpose of bona fide requirement, as he is already engaged in independent business. Reliance was placed on Samey Lal v. Baljit Kaur, 2022(2) PLR 226, to contend that if the amendment sought changes the very basis and cause of action of the pleadings, such amendment cannot be allowed.

5. The learned Rent Controller, however, allowed the amendment application vide impugned order dated 15.01.2025, holding that although the LRs could file a fresh ejectment petition on the ground of their bona fide requirement, the same would lead to multiplicity of litigation and unnecessary expense, whereas allowing the amendment would serve the ends of justice, since the LRs were not seeking to introduce any entirely new ground but only continuing the same ground of bona fide requirement by pleading their own necessity in place of the deceased landlord.

6. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, the petitioners/tenants have preferred the present revision petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel fo