121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7934-2025 Date of Decision: 06.11.2025 BALWINDER KUMAR ....Petitioner Versus JAGRAJ SINGH ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Parmod Goyal, J. (Oral)

Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar exercising powers of learned Rent Controller, vide which application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC preferred by respondent/landlord seeking amendment in the petition was allowed. The respondent/landlord had sought amendment of head note of petition wherein petition was mentioned to be one under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 whereas the said Act stood repealed but actually it was a petition under Section 20 of Punjab Rent Act, 1995. Wrong provision was inadvertently mentioned in the head note of the petition and to avoid complications at later stage, respondent/landlord sought amendment of the same.

2. The learned Rent Controller after considering contentions of the respective parties concluded that the ground on which eviction has been sought i.e. non-payment of rent and personal necessity existed under both the acts i.e. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as well as Punjab Rent Act, 1995. The learned Rent Controller also concluded that correction of head note is mere correction of correct provisions of law and, therefore, had allowed the amendment application placing reliance upon the judgment of Daljit Singh Sandhu Vs. M/s Bhatia Electronics 2022 (1) RCR (Rent) 556 wherein, application filed by petitioner for treating petition under Section 13-B under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as petition under New Rent Act was allowed.

3. Learned counsel for respondent/tenant, however, argues that scope, ambit and object of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and that of Punjab Rent Act, 1995 are totally distinct and different. The grounds and adjudication process is also different and implications and complications are also different. It is asserted that respondent/landlord had failed to exercise due diligence and as the matter was fixed for final arguments, therefore, amendment could not have been allowed at this stage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments :-

1. Daljit Singh Sandhu Vs. M/s Bhatia Electronics, 2022 (1)

RCR (Rent) 556;

2. Sant Footwear Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sarvinder Singh & Anr., 2025 NCPHHC 6937;

3. Onkar Singh (Deceased) Vs. Ramesh Bhandari, 2022 (1) RCR (Rent) 592;

4. Randhir Singh Vs. Ranjodh Singh Mudhar & Anr., 2018 (1)

RCR (Rent) 189;

5. Rashpal Kaur @ Rachpal Kaur Vs. Hardip Singh Gill, 2020 (2) RCR (Rent) 164;

6. Arsh Mobel Enterprises & Ors. Vs. Darspal Singh, 2024 (2)

RCR (Rent) 638.

5. On consideration, I find no merit in the present revision petition. Mere mentioning of wrong provision in the head note of rent petition will have no effect on the rights of the parties. Admittedly, the grounds under both the Acts i.e. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which stood repealed and under Punjab Rent Act, 1995 are same. Rather the provisions of Punjab Rent Act, 1995 are more stringent towards the rights of a tenant and petitioner/tenant would have been liable to take the leave to contest whereas, in the present case, he automatically without making out a case got leave to contest and has already led his evidence before the learned Rent Controller. Therefore, by amendment, prejudice if any would be caused to the landlord and not to the present petitioner/tenant.

6. Moreover, it is the contents of plaint which are to be taken as a whole which is relevant to find out what relief can be granted to a person. Mere mentioning of wrong provision or non-mentioning of provisions of law would not take away substantive right of a party, if he is able to show that even after mentioning wrong provision is e