Inder Pal Batra vs Arun Bansal

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—This revision petition is directed against order dated 10.03.2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala, by which an application filed by the landlord for amendment of his eviction petition with respect to the number of the shop has been allowed, subject to the payment of Rs. 500/- as costs.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that a positive case of the Respondent/landlord was that the Petitioner/tenant is in possession of the premises numbered as 5498/2. The written statement to the eviction petition was field by the Petitioner/tenant in which he did not aware as to whether he is in possession of the premises numbered as 5498/1 or 5498/2. Lateron, he filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short Code of Civil Procedure] in order to amend his written statement to contend that he is in possession of shop No. 5498/1 and not 5498/2, situated at Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt. That application was contested by the landlord in which he categorically urged that the tenant is in possession of shop No. 5498/2 and not 5498/1, as alleged by him in the amendment application. However, the written statement was allowed to be amended and the assertion of the tenant was incorporated in the written statement to the effect that he is in possession of shop No. 5498/1. Faced with this situation, the Respondent/landlord filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to amend his eviction petition in respect of the number of the building as 5498/1 instead of 5498/2.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the application is lacking bona fide and also after the amendment of Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, the Respondent/landlord has to make an assertion that the error has crept in despite the exercise of due diligence.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the available record with his assistance.

In fact, there was the likelihood of error because the tenant was in possession of both the shops bearing Nos. 5498/1 and 5498/2, out of which one shop was got vacated by the landlord. It appears that out of confusion, the Respondent/landlord has mentioned shop No. 5498/2 in his eviction petition and stick to it when the application for amendment of the written statement was filed by the tenant, but later on when he found that the amendment has been allowed, he filed the application to amend his eviction petition accordingly.

In view of the above, I do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller who has already imposed costs upon the landlord for the fault on his part. Hence, the revision petition is found to be without any merit and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs.