Surjit Kaur and Others vs Shanti Devi

Alok Singh, J.—Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.01.2010, passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby the application moved by the Petitioner-tenant seeking amendment in the written statement for bringing on record the subsequent event was declined.

The brief facts of the case are that landlord (Respondent herein) has filed the eviction petition on the ground of bona fide need. In the eviction proceedings, Defendant (Petitioner herein) moved an application seeking amendment in the written statement to the effect that during the pendency of eviction petition, landlord has got vacated the Shop No. 4, hence this fact of getting the vacant possession of Shop No. 4 should be brought on record as it is a subsequent event during the pendency of the case. Learned Rent Controller declined the request of the tenant on the ground that fact that Petitioner landlord got vacated another shop will not make any change in the bona fide need of the landlord.

In the opinion of this Court, tenant is entitled to bring on record subsequent event. On being asked, learned Counsel for the Respondent landlord admits yes landlord has got vacated Shop No. 4 during the pendency of the eviction petition.

In view of this, amendment ought to have been allowed, which was wrongly refused.

Petition is allowed. Tenant is directed to carry out the amendment in the written statement as prayed for in the amendment application. However, amendment shall be carried out subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the learned Counsel for the landlord within 10 days from today.