Maya Devi vs Roshan Lal

R.S. Mongia, J.—The petitioner, who is a landlady, had filed a petition for ejectment of the respondent u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. As per the allegations, during the pendency of the petition before the Rent Controller, the tenant came to occupy another premises. The petitioner sought amendment of the ejectment petition to incorporate that fact and to press for ejectment on that ground as well. Vide the impugned order, the amendment was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as costs, This revision petition has been filled against the aforesaid order to the extent it imposes Rs. 2,000/- as costs.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent in person.

In the impugned order while granting the prayer for amendment of the petition, no justification is coming forth as to why such heavy costs were imposed on the petitioner. The costs are imposed normally to compensate to some extent the opposite party under given circumstances and not by way of any penal action against the person seeking amendment. The amendment was sought immediately after the petitioner had came to know that the tenant had come to occupy another premises which fact was concealed by him. The Rent Controller has herself observed that "pleading ignorance of the sale in question by the tenant makes it evident that the tenant is concealing something from the Court." I consider that Rs. 300/- would be appropriate costs for allowing the amendment of the ejectment petition. The impugned order stands modified to that extent. If the costs of Rs. 300/- are paid by the petitioner on the next date of hearing that is already fixed before the Rent Controller, the amended ejectment petition shall be taken on record.

The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Copy of this order be given dasti to the parties on payment.