Tilak Raj vs Mangat Ram Jain

Jaswant Singh, J.—Tenant/petitioner is in revision against the order dated 10.5.2012 (P5) whereby the learned Rent Controller, Mukerian has allowed the amendment application of the respondent/landlord whereby the plea of bona fide necessity for the son has been permitted to be given up due to his joining service. Learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner submits that the eviction petition on the ground of bona fide necessity of both-landlord and his son was filed in the year 2010 and now after a lapse of 2 years, the present amendment application has been allowed permitting the surrendering the plea of bona fide necessity of the son. Thus submits that the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside.

After hearing the learned counsel, I find that the argument sought to be raised is absolutely frivolous and deserves to be outrightly rejected.

It is not in dispute that in the eviction petition seeking eviction by the landlord the plea of bona fide necessity of the father landlord and his son was raised in the year 2010 and subsequently, the son Adish Jain had joined a job with Mandi Board, Chandigarh in December 2011. Thus, the application for amendment was preferred by the respondent/landlord vide his application dated 12.3.2012. In my view the learned Rent Controller has rightly permitted the amendment in view of the ceasing of the need of the son due to an event which is subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition.

Dismissed.