On December 21, 2022, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while allowing an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the rent petition, observed that, the issuance of non-payment of rent can be determined by the learned Rent Controller only once the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties is clear.
Brief Facts:
The respondent along with his brother owned a shop bearing No.78- A situated on Railway Link Road, Amritsar. This shop was rented out to the petitioner on 6.7.2016 @ Rs.1000/- per month and a rent note dated 6.7.2016 was executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent and his brother. Thereafter, the respondent filed a Rent Petition seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrict Act,1949 on the ground that the said demised premises was required by the respondent’s daughter as she was an advocate and needed an office to entertain the clients. Moreover, the respondent averred that the he had no other shop within the Municipal limits of Amritsar after the commencement of the Rent Act.
The petitioner in his reply denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was stated that the petitioner and respondent were real brothers and the shop in question was never taken on rent. It was further stated that the demised premises had been in possession of the petitioner since 1982-83, and he had actually been in full and complete control since the death of their father, and the petitioner had never paid any rent to anybody. When the trail had commenced, the respondent filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the Rent Petition on the ground that the Rent Petition had been filed under the Old Act and since the inception of tenancy was on 6.7.2016, which is after 30.11.2013, the petition was required to be filed under the Punjab Rent Act,1995; and para 3(i) (a) was sought to be added as a ground with regard to arrears of rent.
The said amendment application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller via impugned order dated 12.9.2022, giving rise to this revision petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the very beginning landlord-tenant relationship between the parties had been specifically denied by the petitioner and the petitioner was in possession of the demised premises since 1982-83. The present application was a ploy to obviate the evidence led by AW1, the 3rd brother, who in his evidence had admitted the case of the petitioner.
It was further contended that the amendment sought was not necessary and the respondent should had exercised due diligence. It was added that the concession of Section 20(2) (a) was available to the tenant only once and grave prejudice and injustice would be caused to him if the impugned order was sustained.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel representing the respondent submitted that the respondent was not very literate and could hardly affix his signatures in English, was further not conversant with legal procedure and therefore, was not aware, hence, entirely dependent upon his previous counsel who had filed the Rent Petition under the Old Act. It is only upon the death of the previous counsel when the respondent engaged the present counsel that he came to know that the rent petition is required to be filed as per new Act.
It was further added that since the case was at its initial stage therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner especially as possession of the petitioner was not being disturbed. Moreover, the evidence led heretofore would remain on record, and evidence of parties would resume from where it was left off. Some judgements in the cases of Dr. Sewak Parshad v Gram Panchayat Raipur Rani, Prithvi Singh Azad v Ajaib Singh Sidhu, Harnam Singh v Surjit Singh, and many more were referred by the counsel.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed that the inception of tenancy being after 30.11.2013, as per law it had to be filed under the 1995 Act only. “In my view, petition under the old Act would be non-est inasmuch as vide Section 75 of the 1995 Act, the old Act stands repealed. It is therefore, clear that the present amendment is necessary and has to be permitted, as, in not doing so not only will prejudice be caused to the petitioner, but the same will also lead to multiplicity of litigation.”
The court further added with regards to addition of para 3(i)(a) that the petitioner should be granted adequate opportunity by the ld. Rent Controller to file his amended written statement to enable him to amend his stance as per the amendments wrought in the rent petition, and to take all grounds available to him as per law.
The amendments sought by the respondent were allowed while adding that “the issuance of non-payment of rent can be determined by the learned Rent Controller only once the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties is clear.”
The Decision of the Court:
The petition was disposed of, allowing applications filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the Rent Petition.
Case Title: Mohinder Pal Anand Vs. Inderjeet Anand
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta
Case No.- CR 5251/2022(O&M)
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Anil Chawla
Advocate for Respondent: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Mr. Shrenik Jain and Mr. Hari Pal.
Read Judgement
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
0 Comments