IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.10.2025 Prem Singh …Petitioner V/s Narinder Singh (since deceased) through LRs. …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate and Mr. Abhinav Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate, for the respondent.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated

22.10.2018 passed by the Court of Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, vide which the second application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “CPC”) for amendment of the eviction petition was allowed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that the respondent-landlord instituted a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the “Rent Act”) for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the shops (details of which were given in the eviction petition) situated on Roshan Road, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as the “demised property”) on the ground of personal bona fide necessity.

3. After evidence of both sides had concluded, an application (Annexure P-10) 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 sub-para A of part 2 of the eviction petition, the respondent-landlord could not mention the fact that the respondent-landlord was having other shops, whereas the legal heirs of the respondent-landlord along with their uncles were owners of 13 shops situated on Tempo Adda, Phagwara Road, Hoshiarpur. Certain consequential amendments were also sought to be made. The application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-11). By way of the impugned order, the application was allowed, leading to filing of the instant revision petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable as the endeavour of the respondent-landlord was to fill up the lacuna as he had not mentioned in the pleadings that the respondent- landlord was owner of 13 other shops along with his brothers. Reference has been made to the eviction petition (Annexure P-5), written statement (Annexure P-6) and the replication (Annexure P-8). Learned counsel submits that after the entire evidence of both sides had concluded, the application for amendment was moved. He submits that the Court of learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur gravely erred in allowing the application. Learned counsel has submitted that the application for amendment was moved only after the fact of the respondent-landlord being the owner of 13 other shops came in his cross- examination. Learned counsel further submits that in identical eviction petitions, identical amendment applications had been dismissed by the Court of Rent Controller, leading to filing of CR-7375-2018 and CR-7376-2018 by the respondent-landlord, which were dismissed by this Court vide order dated

06.02.2025.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has submitted that there in no illegality in the impugned order. He submits that there was no attempt on the part of the respondent-landlord to fill up the lacuna and he simply wanted to clarify the matter by way of the amendment. He submits that under the circumstances, learned Rent Controller rightly allowed the application for amendment. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon Baldev Singh and others vs. Manohar Singh and another, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 844, Usha Balashaheb Swami and others vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and others, 2007 AIR SC 1663, Jaswir Singh Jawanda and another Vs. Suraj Parkash, 2008 (59) RCR (Civil) 49, Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others vs. K.K. Modi and others, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 577, Satpal and another Vs. Harish Kumar, 2023(2) RCR (Civil) 652, Satish Kumar @ Satish Pal vs. Kartar Singh, 2020(2) RCR (Rent) 27, Jag Dutt v