Pronounced on Jaspal Singh v. Bimla Wati
Case Details
CR-6327-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR CR-6327-2025 (O&M) Reserved on: Reserved on:-10.09.2025 Pronounced on:- 12.09.2025 Pronounced on Jaspal Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Bimla Wati (since deceased) through her LRs Bimla Wati (since deceased) through her LRs ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Present: Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate and Mr. A.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Kaushik, Advocates Mr. Gourav Singla and Mr. Ashish Kaushik, Advocates Mr. Gourav Singla and or the respondents. for the respondents. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU 1. Present revision petition has been directed against the order dated Present revision petition has been directed against the order dated Present revision petition has been directed against the order dated Present revision petition has been directed against the order dated passed by the learned Rent Controller, whereby the application filed by 13.08.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller, whereby the application filed by passed by the learned Rent Controller, whereby the application filed by passed by the learned Rent Controller, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/tenant for amendment of the written statement was dismissed. the petitioner/tenant for amendment of the written statement was dismissed. the petitioner/tenant for amendment of the written statement was dismissed.
Legal Reasoning
Brief Facts 2. landlord had filed an eviction The brief facts are that the respondent-landlord had filed an eviction The brief facts are that the respondent The brief facts are that the respondent petition in the year 2019 seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the demised petition in the year 2019 seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the demised petition in the year 2019 seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the demised petition in the year 2019 seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the demised payment of rent, material impairment and bona fide shop on the grounds of non-payment of rent, material impairment and bona fide payment of rent, material impairment and bona fide shop on the grounds of non dlord’s grandson Bhavesh. During the pendency of the requirement of the landlord’s grandson Bhavesh. During the pendency of the dlord’s grandson Bhavesh. During the pendency of the requirement of the lan eviction petition, the landlord died on 05.02.2022 eviction petition, the landlord died on and Bhavesh was impleaded as 05.02.2022 and Bhavesh was impleaded as legal representative on 24.05.2022. legal representative on 3. The The The The tenant filed written statement and tenant filed written statement and tenant filed written statement and tenant filed written statement and thereafter sought an thereafter sought an thereafter sought an thereafter sought an rtain typographical errors, which was allowed. Later, amendment to correct certain typographical errors, which was allowed. Later, rtain typographical errors, which was allowed. Later, amendment to correct ce another amendment application was filed by the tenant alleging that the premises another amendment application was filed by the tenant alleging that the premises another amendment application was filed by the tenant alleging that the premises another amendment application was filed by the tenant alleging that the premises TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6327-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -2- - 2024. The was Shamlat land, which came to be dismissed by order dated 15.04.2024. The was Shamlat land, which came to be dismissed by order dated was Shamlat land, which came to be dismissed by order dated case was thereafter fixed for evidence of the case was thereafter fixed for evidence of the chief of landlord. Examination-in-chief of Bhavesh as well as his father Rajesh Aggarwal was recorded, whereupon the Bhavesh as well as his father Rajesh Aggarwal was recorded, whereupon the Bhavesh as well as his father Rajesh Aggarwal was recorded, whereupon the Bhavesh as well as his father Rajesh Aggarwal was recorded, whereupon the tenant sought to rely upon a video recording of Rajesh Aggarwal allegedly tenant sought to rely upon a video recording of Rajesh Aggarwal allegedly tenant sought to rely upon a video recording of Rajesh Aggarwal allegedly tenant sought to rely upon a video recording of Rajesh Aggarwal allegedly That admitting that eviction proceedings were initiated only to enhance rent. That admitting that eviction proceedings were initiated only to enhance rent. admitting that eviction proceedings were initiated only to enhance rent. application too was dismissed on 02.12.2024. application too was dismissed on 4. Subsequently, during the pendency of proceedings, the tenant claimed Subsequently, during the pendency of proceedings, the tenant claimed Subsequently, during the pendency of proceedings, the tenant claimed Subsequently, during the pendency of proceedings, the tenant claimed to know that Bhavesh had obtained possession of two shops in that he came to know that Bhavesh had obtained possession of two shops in to know that Bhavesh had obtained possession of two shops in to know that Bhavesh had obtained possession of two shops in ame M/s Sunshine Gandhi Chowk in which he was running a business under the name M/s Sunshine Gandhi Chowk in which he was running a business under the n Gandhi Chowk in which he was running a business under the n 10.03.2025 Mobiles. Based upon this, the tenant filed another application dated 10.03.2025 Mobiles. Based upon this, the tenant filed another application dated Mobiles. Based upon this, the tenant filed another application dated seeking amendment of the written statement to plead the said subsequent seeking amendment of the written statement to plead the said subsequent seeking amendment of the written statement to plead the said subsequent seeking amendment of the written statement to plead the said subsequent development and to place on record a video footage of September 2024 to negate development and to place on record a video footage of September 2024 to negate development and to place on record a video footage of September 2024 to negate development and to place on record a video footage of September 2024 to negate nd of bona fide requirement. The landlord filed reply and also moved an the ground of bona fide requirement. The landlord filed reply and also moved an nd of bona fide requirement. The landlord filed reply and also moved an nd of bona fide requirement. The landlord filed reply and also moved an application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC for supply of copy of the pen drive application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC for supply of copy of the pen drive application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC for supply of copy of the pen drive application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC for supply of copy of the pen drive 2025 and containing the alleged video. That application was allowed on 23.05.2025 and containing the alleged video. That application was allowed on containing the alleged video. That application was allowed on both sides, the Rent Controller dismissed the copy was supplied. After hearing both sides, the Rent Controller dismissed the both sides, the Rent Controller dismissed the copy was supplied. After hearing amendment application filed by the tenant vide amendment application 2025, holding filed by the tenant vide order dated 13.08.2025, holding that no due diligence had been exercised by the tenant, that the proposed inter alia that no due diligence had been exercised by the tenant, that the proposed that no due diligence had been exercised by the tenant, that the proposed that no due diligence had been exercised by the tenant, that the proposed t this was the third amendment amendment was belated and mala fide, and that this was the third amendment amendment was belated and mala fide, and tha amendment was belated and mala fide, and tha application, filed only with an intent to delay the proceedings. application, filed only with an intent to delay the proceedings. application, filed only with an intent to delay the proceedings. 5. Aggrieved, the tenant has filed the present revision petition. Aggrieved, the tenant has filed the present revision petition. Aggrieved, the tenant has filed the present revision petition. Submission of learned counsel for the parties Submission of learned counsel for the parties 6. rgued that during the Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant argued that during the Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant a Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant a proceedings before the Rent Controller, it came to light that Bhavesh had secured proceedings before the Rent Controller, it came to light that Bhavesh had secured proceedings before the Rent Controller, it came to light that Bhavesh had secured proceedings before the Rent Controller, it came to light that Bhavesh had secured possession of two shops in Gandhi Chowk and was running a mobile business possession of two shops in Gandhi Chowk and was running a mobile business possession of two shops in Gandhi Chowk and was running a mobile business possession of two shops in Gandhi Chowk and was running a mobile business TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6327-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -3- - ment, there. This subsequent event directly strikes at the plea of bona fide requirement, there. This subsequent event directly strikes at the plea of bona fide require there. This subsequent event directly strikes at the plea of bona fide require and therefore, amendment was necessary to bring this fact on record. Reliance has and therefore, amendment was necessary to bring this fact on record. Reliance has and therefore, amendment was necessary to bring this fact on record. Reliance has and therefore, amendment was necessary to bring this fact on record. Reliance has Ashok Kumar v. Mohinder Pal Singh and another 2008 (1) been placed upon Ashok Kumar v. Mohinder Pal Singh and another 2008 (1) Ashok Kumar v. Mohinder Pal Singh and another 2008 (1) been placed upon , where this Court allowed amendment of the written statement at RCR (Civil) 772, where this Court allowed amendment of the written statement at , where this Court allowed amendment of the written statement at RCR (Civil) 772 in view of subsequent events, holding that such amendment is a belated stage in view of subsequent events, holding that such amendment is in view of subsequent events, holding that such amendment is a belated stage essential for proper adjudication of the controversy. Counsel has further relied essential for proper adjudication of the controversy. Counsel has further relied essential for proper adjudication of the controversy. Counsel has further relied essential for proper adjudication of the controversy. Counsel has further relied , where it was Gurnam Singh v. Hari Mohan 2001 (1) RCR (Civil) 662, where it was Gurnam Singh v. Hari Mohan 2001 (1) RCR (Civil) 662 upon Gurnam Singh v. Hari Mohan 2001 (1) RCR (Civil) 662 n note of, and amendment cannot be observed that subsequent events can be taken note of, and amendment cannot be n note of, and amendment cannot be observed that subsequent events can be take declined merely because it was sought at a later stage. declined merely because it was sought at a later stage. declined merely because it was sought at a later stage. 7. , learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has argued Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has argued , learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has argued Per contra that no illegality has been committed by the Rent Controller in dismissing the that no illegality has been committed by the Rent Controller in dismissing the that no illegality has been committed by the Rent Controller in dismissing the that no illegality has been committed by the Rent Controller in dismissing the is submitted that the amendment is not maintainable as the rights of application. It is submitted that the amendment is not maintainable as the rights of is submitted that the amendment is not maintainable as the rights of is submitted that the amendment is not maintainable as the rights of the parties crystallise on the date of filing of the eviction petition. Reliance has the parties crystallise on the date of filing of the eviction petition. Reliance has the parties crystallise on the date of filing of the eviction petition. Reliance has the parties crystallise on the date of filing of the eviction petition. Reliance has arwal and another v. Urmil Rani Khosla alias been placed upon Rakesh Aggarwal and another v. Urmil Rani Khosla alias arwal and another v. Urmil Rani Khosla alias been placed upon , wherein this Court held that satisfaction of Urmil Rani 2025 (1) RCR (Rent) 312, wherein this Court held that satisfaction of , wherein this Court held that satisfaction of Urmil Rani 2025 (1) RCR (Rent conditions of bona fide requirement under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act has conditions of bona fide requirement under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act has conditions of bona fide requirement under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act has conditions of bona fide requirement under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act has to be seen as on the date of filing of eviction petition, and the law does not prohibit to be seen as on the date of filing of eviction petition, and the law does not prohibit to be seen as on the date of filing of eviction petition, and the law does not prohibit to be seen as on the date of filing of eviction petition, and the law does not prohibit operties during pendency of the petition. It is landlord from acquiring further properties during pendency of the petition. It is operties during pendency of the petition. It is landlord from acquiring further pr further argued that this was the third amendment application moved by the tenant, further argued that this was the third amendment application moved by the tenant, further argued that this was the third amendment application moved by the tenant, further argued that this was the third amendment application moved by the tenant, earlier two having been decided, which itself shows that the tenant is only delaying earlier two having been decided, which itself shows that the tenant is only delaying earlier two having been decided, which itself shows that the tenant is only delaying earlier two having been decided, which itself shows that the tenant is only delaying proceedings. Findings 8. It is well settled that amendments in pleadings are generally to be It is well settled that amendments in pleadings are generally to be It is well settled that amendments in pleadings are generally to be It is well settled that amendments in pleadings are generally to be allowed if they are necessary for effective adjudication of the real controversy allowed if they are necessary for effective adjudication of the real controversy allowed if they are necessary for effective adjudication of the real controversy allowed if they are necessary for effective adjudication of the real controversy between the parties, and if they do not change the nature of the case. Where between the parties, and if they do not change the nature of the case. Where between the parties, and if they do not change the nature of the case. Where between the parties, and if they do not change the nature of the case. Where TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6327-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -4- - ial bearing on the rights of the parties, courts have subsequent events have a material bearing on the rights of the parties, courts have ial bearing on the rights of the parties, courts have subsequent events have a mater permitted incorporation of such events by way of amendment so that the lis can be permitted incorporation of such events by way of amendment so that the lis can be permitted incorporation of such events by way of amendment so that the lis can be permitted incorporation of such events by way of amendment so that the lis can be adjudicated effectively. However, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC mandates adjudicated effectively. However, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC mandates adjudicated effectively. However, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC mandates adjudicated effectively. However, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC mandates dment shall be allowed unless the party that once the trial has commenced, no amendment shall be allowed unless the party dment shall be allowed unless the party that once the trial has commenced, no amen satisfies the Court that in spite of due diligence, the matter could not be raised satisfies the Court that in spite of due diligence, the matter could not be raised satisfies the Court that in spite of due diligence, the matter could not be raised satisfies the Court that in spite of due diligence, the matter could not be raised earlier. The “due diligence” requirement earlier. The “due diligence” requirement earlier. The “due diligence” requirement earlier. The “due diligence” requirement is of considerable significance, is of considerable significance, is of considerable significance, is of considerable significance, delay is apparent. It is particularly where repeated applications are filed or where delay is apparent. It is particularly where repeated applications are filed or where particularly where repeated applications are filed or where equally settled that in rent matters, the requirement of the landlord is to be seen on equally settled that in rent matters, the requirement of the landlord is to be seen on equally settled that in rent matters, the requirement of the landlord is to be seen on equally settled that in rent matters, the requirement of the landlord is to be seen on the date of filing of eviction petition, and subsequent acquisition of property by the the date of filing of eviction petition, and subsequent acquisition of property by the the date of filing of eviction petition, and subsequent acquisition of property by the the date of filing of eviction petition, and subsequent acquisition of property by the acto defeat the claim of landlord during pendency of the petition does not ipso facto defeat the claim of landlord during pendency of the petition does not ipso f landlord during pendency of the petition does not ipso f bona fide requirement. bona fide requirement. 9. Applying the above principles, it is evident that the present is the third Applying the above principles, it is evident that the present is the third Applying the above principles, it is evident that the present is the third Applying the above principles, it is evident that the present is the third application for amendment moved by the tenant. One amendment was allowed and application for amendment moved by the tenant. One amendment was allowed and application for amendment moved by the tenant. One amendment was allowed and application for amendment moved by the tenant. One amendment was allowed and based upon alleged another dismissed earlier. The proposed amendment is based upon alleged another dismissed earlier. The proposed amendment is another dismissed earlier. The proposed amendment is subsequent events of 2024, whereas the eviction petition was filed in 2019 and has subsequent events of 2024, whereas the eviction petition was filed in 2019 and has subsequent events of 2024, whereas the eviction petition was filed in 2019 and has subsequent events of 2024, whereas the eviction petition was filed in 2019 and has already been pending for long. The tenant has not explained why the facts now already been pending for long. The tenant has not explained why the facts now already been pending for long. The tenant has not explained why the facts now already been pending for long. The tenant has not explained why the facts now r coming sought to be incorporated were not pleaded at the earliest opportunity after coming sought to be incorporated were not pleaded at the earliest opportunity afte sought to be incorporated were not pleaded at the earliest opportunity afte to his knowledge. The Rent Controller has rightly noted that there is absence of to his knowledge. The Rent Controller has rightly noted that there is absence of to his knowledge. The Rent Controller has rightly noted that there is absence of to his knowledge. The Rent Controller has rightly noted that there is absence of due diligence on the part of the tenant. due diligence on the part of the tenant. 10. Coming to the case law cited, Ashok Kumar (supra) Coming to the case law cited, Gurnam Ashok Kumar (supra) and Gurnam events can be taken indeed lay down the principle that subsequent events can be taken indeed lay down the principle that subsequent Singh (supra) indeed lay down the principle that subsequent note of by way of amendment in order to determine the real controversy. However, note of by way of amendment in order to determine the real controversy. However, note of by way of amendment in order to determine the real controversy. However, note of by way of amendment in order to determine the real controversy. However, those were cases where the subsequent events had a direct bearing on the issue and those were cases where the subsequent events had a direct bearing on the issue and those were cases where the subsequent events had a direct bearing on the issue and those were cases where the subsequent events had a direct bearing on the issue and where the amendment was not found to be mala fide or intended to delay where the amendment was not found to be mala fide or intended to delay where the amendment was not found to be mala fide or intended to delay where the amendment was not found to be mala fide or intended to delay proceedings. On the other hand, in the present case, the facts already pleaded in the proceedings. On the other hand, in the present case, the facts already pleaded in the proceedings. On the other hand, in the present case, the facts already pleaded in the proceedings. On the other hand, in the present case, the facts already pleaded in the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6327-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -5- - eviction petition made the tenant aware of the circumstances, yet no timely steps eviction petition made the tenant aware of the circumstances, yet no timely steps eviction petition made the tenant aware of the circumstances, yet no timely steps eviction petition made the tenant aware of the circumstances, yet no timely steps were taken. The application is the third in the series, and it clearly appears that the were taken. The application is the third in the series, and it clearly appears that the were taken. The application is the third in the series, and it clearly appears that the were taken. The application is the third in the series, and it clearly appears that the attempt is to prolong the litigation. attempt is to prolong the litigation. 11. Moreover, the ratio of Rakesh Agarwal (supra) Moreover, the ratio of squarely applies here. Rakesh Agarwal (supra) squarely applies here. It was categorically held that rights of the parties in eviction proceedings It was categorically held that rights of the parties in eviction proceedings It was categorically held that rights of the parties in eviction proceedings It was categorically held that rights of the parties in eviction proceedings restriction on the crystallise on the date of filing of the petition, and there is no restriction on the crystallise on the date of filing of the petition, and there is no crystallise on the date of filing of the petition, and there is no landlord acquiring further property during pendency of the case. The requirement landlord acquiring further property during pendency of the case. The requirement landlord acquiring further property during pendency of the case. The requirement landlord acquiring further property during pendency of the case. The requirement of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act is to be examined as on the date of filing, and of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act is to be examined as on the date of filing, and of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act is to be examined as on the date of filing, and of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act is to be examined as on the date of filing, and ement. subsequent acquisition does not defeat the ground of bona fide requirement. subsequent acquisition does not defeat the ground of bona fide requir subsequent acquisition does not defeat the ground of bona fide requir Therefore, even if Bhavesh obtained possession of shops in 2024, that by itself Therefore, even if Bhavesh obtained possession of shops in 2024, that by itself Therefore, even if Bhavesh obtained possession of shops in 2024, that by itself Therefore, even if Bhavesh obtained possession of shops in 2024, that by itself would not negate the bona fide requirement pleaded in 2019. would not negate the bona fide requirement pleaded in 2019. would not negate the bona fide requirement pleaded in 2019. 12. Thus, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable Thus, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable Thus, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable Thus, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable on facts, whereas the principle in Rakesh Agarwal on facts, whereas the principle in governs the Rakesh Agarwal’s case (supra) governs the present case. Conclusion 13. In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the learned Rent In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the learned Rent In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the learned Rent In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the learned Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the application for amendment of the written Controller has rightly dismissed the application for amendment of the written Controller has rightly dismissed the application for amendment of the written Controller has rightly dismissed the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the tenant. The application suffers statement filed by the tenant. The a want of due diligence, is pplication suffers for want of due diligence, is belated, and is the third in a series of amendment applications filed with the intent belated, and is the third in a series of amendment applications filed with the intent belated, and is the third in a series of amendment applications filed with the intent belated, and is the third in a series of amendment applications filed with the intent of delaying the proceedings. The plea of subsequent acquisition of shops by the of delaying the proceedings. The plea of subsequent acquisition of shops by the of delaying the proceedings. The plea of subsequent acquisition of shops by the of delaying the proceedings. The plea of subsequent acquisition of shops by the djudication of bona fide requirement, as landlord’s grandson is not relevant for adjudication of bona fide requirement, as djudication of bona fide requirement, as landlord’s grandson is not relevant for a the rights of the parties are to be adjudged on the date of filing of the eviction the rights of the parties are to be adjudged on the date of filing of the eviction the rights of the parties are to be adjudged on the date of filing of the eviction the rights of the parties are to be adjudged on the date of filing of the eviction The conduct of the tenant in filing one amendment after another, coupled petition. The conduct of the tenant in filing one amendment after another, coupled The conduct of the tenant in filing one amendment after another, coupled The conduct of the tenant in filing one amendment after another, coupled delay. Such abuse of process cannot with belated pleas, clearly reflects an intent to delay. Such abuse of process cannot delay. Such abuse of process cannot with belated pleas, clearly reflects an intent to be permitted. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6327-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -6- - 14. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the ccordingly, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the ccordingly, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the ccordingly, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the 2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller. The impugned order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller. The 2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller. The impugned order dated present civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. present civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. present civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. 15.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 September 12, 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document