Naresh Kumar v. Vinod Kumar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Kunal Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J The application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 has been declined by the learned Rent Controller. The petitioner who is a tenant is facing proceedings pursuant to provisions under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,
1949. By virtue of the impugned order he wanted to plead that in May, 2006, the respondent-landlord had come to him suggesting an increase in rent which was declined by the petitioner. On the strength of this plea, the petitioner wishes to inject an element of mala fides on the part of the respondent in filing the ejectment petition which also includes the ground of personal necessity. The petitioner thus wants to plead that the bona fide necessity is not the real ground and the actual reason is the seeking an increase in rent. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment sought for is germane to the case of the petitioner and it does CR No. 6295 of 2008 2 not in any way prejudice the respondent. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to succeed. The written statement was filed by the petitioner in November,
2006. The fact that the landlord had approached him in May 2006 was very well known to him at that point of time. If a person seeks amendment of the pleadings, he must satisfy the conscious of the Court that it was for some cogent and plausible reason that he was precluded from raising the plea which he now seeks to incorporate by way of an amendment. Procedural laws even though to be interpreted liberally must satisfy the test laid above. In view of the fact that nothing has been shown to the Court as to why this fact which was certainly known to the petitioner few months prior to the filing of the written statement was not incorporated in the written statement; raises a doubt in the mind of the Court as to the genuineness of the same. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. November 17, 2008 (Mahesh Grover) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 — s. 13.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 17 Nov 2008. The bench was MAHESH GROVER.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.