Punjab State Human Rights Commission v. Sudhir Kumar Marwaha etc

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for the petitioner-tenant. Jaswant Singh, J By way of filing the instant revision under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner-tenant has prayed for setting aside the order dated 13.3.2012 (P.5) passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby the application of the respondents-landlords under order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the rent petition has been allowed as also the impugned order dated 8.10.2012 (P.10) whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 13.3.2012 has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-landlords filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short “the Act”) for eviction of the petitioner on the grounds mentioned therein. During the pendency of the petition, landlord moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the petition thereby seeking certain details of the grounds taken in the petition but the same was opposed by the tenant-petitioner. However, after taking into consideration the facts of the case and stand of C.R No.7224 of 2012 #2# both the parties, learned Rent Controller allowed the application for amendment vide order dated 13.3.2012 (P.5). Aggrieved against the above order of learned Rent Controller, the petitioner preferred an appeal but the same was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority under the Act vide order dated 8.10.2012 on the ground that no appeal is maintainable, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that both the courts below have gravely erred while allowing the application of the respondents for amendment. It is argued that in view of the order dated

30.8.2012 (P.9) passed by this Court, the learned Appellate Authority has wrongly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner as not maintainable while passing the order dated 8.10.2012. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal. Undisputedly, the rent petition is at initial stage and even issues have not been framed by the learned Rent Controller and thus the trial has not commenced. The order passed by learned Rent Controller is vehemently opposed by raising the pleas that such grounds as projected by way of amendment are not available to the landlord for eviction under the Act but this Court is not persuaded to agree with the same. Be that as it may, the ground raised in a rent petition either in the original form or by way of an amendment is to be considered by the learned Rent Controller at the time of final adjudication but the same cannot be opposed at this stage and in my opinion, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. C.R No.7224 of 2012 #3# So far as the argument that this Court while passing order dated

30.8.2012 (P.9) has directed the learned Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 13.3.2012 (P.5) does not mean that the same is to be decided on merits despite the fact that a Division Bench of this Court has clearly held in C.R.No.2268 of 2008 decided on

29.5.2012 that an appeal against an order allowing amendment application is not maintainable. Moreover, this court was not apprised about the aforesaid D.B. judgment dated 29.5.2012 of this Court while passing the order dated 30.8.2012 (P.9). In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere with the orders passed by both the courts below. Dismissed. December 03, 2012 ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE