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

CR-6327-2025 (O&M)

Reserved on:-10.09.2025 Pronounced on:- 12.09.2025 Jaspal Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Bimla Wati (since deceased) through her LRs ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. A.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate and Mr. Gourav Singla and Mr. Ashish Kaushik, Advocates for the respondents.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. Present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/tenant for amendment of the written statement was dismissed.

Brief Facts

2. The brief facts are that the respondent-landlord had filed an eviction petition in the year 2019 seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the demised shop on the grounds of non-payment of rent, material impairment and bona fide requirement of the landlord’s grandson Bhavesh. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the landlord died on 05.02.2022 and Bhavesh was impleaded as legal representative on 24.05.2022.

3. The tenant filed written statement and thereafter sought an amendment to correct certain typographical errors, which was allowed. Later, another amendment application was filed by the tenant alleging that the premises was Shamlat land, which came to be dismissed by order dated 15.04.2024. The case was thereafter fixed for evidence of the landlord. Examination-in-chief of Bhavesh as well as his father Rajesh Aggarwal was recorded, whereupon the tenant sought to rely upon a video recording of Rajesh Aggarwal allegedly admitting that eviction proceedings were initiated only to enhance rent. That application too was dismissed on 02.12.2024.

4. Subsequently, during the pendency of proceedings, the tenant claimed that he came to know that Bhavesh had obtained possession of two shops in Gandhi Chowk in which he was running a business under the name M/s Sunshine Mobiles. Based upon this, the tenant filed another application dated 10.03.2025 seeking amendment of the written statement to plead the said subsequent development and to place on record a video footage of September 2024 to negate the ground of bona fide requirement. The landlord filed reply and also moved an application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC for supply of copy of the pen drive containing the alleged video. That application was allowed on 23.05.2025 and copy was supplied. After hearing both sides, the Rent Controller dismissed the amendment application filed by the tenant vide order dated 13.08.2025, holding inter alia that no due diligence had been exercised by the tenant, that the proposed amendment was belated and mala fide, and that this was the third amendment application, filed only with an intent to delay the proceedings.

5. Aggrieved, the tenant has filed the present revision petition.

Submission of learned counsel for the parties

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant argued that during the proceedings before the Rent Controller, it came to light that Bhavesh had secured possession of two shops in Gandhi Chowk and was running a mobile business there. This subsequent event directly strikes at the plea of bona fide requirement, and therefore, amendment was necessary to bring this fact on record. Reliance has been placed upon Ashok Kumar v. Mohinder Pal Singh and another 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 772, where this Court allowed amendment of the written statement at a belated stage in view of subsequent events, holding that such amendment is essential for proper adjudication of the controversy. Counsel has further relied upon Gurnam Singh v. Hari Mohan 2001 (1) RCR (Civil) 662, where it was observed that subsequent events can be taken note of, and amendment cannot be declined merely because it was sought at a later stage.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has argued that no illegality has been committed by the Rent Controller in dismissing the application.