Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20856 = 2025(2) L.A.R. 569 = 2025:PHHC:150841
Decided on: 03.11.2025
Present:
Mr. B.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.S. Chadha, Advocate and
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Eviction petition – Application for amendment of written statement – Expedite disposal of same advisable -- Application for amendment on 10.01.2025, to which, reply was filed on 30.05.2025 -- Grievance of the petitioner/ landlord is that hearing in the application is being deliberately delayed by the respondent – Held, though the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller on the application show it was adjourned on a joint request, it is always advisable that such applications are decided at the earliest -- Revision petition disposed of with a direction to the Court concerned to make efforts to hear arguments on the application, preferably on the date and thereafter to decide the said application expeditiously.
(Para 4, 5)
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) –
The short grievance of the petitioner in the instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is nondecision on an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) having been moved by the respondent-tenant for amendment of the written statement.
2. An eviction petition is stated to have been filed by the petitioner-landlord (Pankaj Khanna) under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the respondent-tenant (Rajbir Singh Rai). The said petition came up for hearing for the first time before the Rent Controller on 13.03.2023. On the said date, notice was issued to the respondent-tenant for 20.05.2023. After completion of pleadings, issues were framed vide order dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure P-3). After which PW1 (Pankaj Khanna) was partly examined. Thereafter, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (Annexure P-5) is stated to have been moved by the respondent-tenant for amendment of the written statement. The said application was presented on 10.01.2025. To which, reply was filed on 30.05.2025 (Annexure P-6). It is the grievance of the petitioner that thereafter the matter was posted for 27.05.2025, 18.07.2025, 29.08.2025, 02.09.2025, 20.09.2025, 04.10.2025 & 18.10.2025. Now, it is fixed for 17.12.2025. The grievance is that hearing in the application is being deliberately delayed by the respondent.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. There would be no necessity of issuing notice to the respondent, for, in view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, no prejudice would be caused to him.
5. Though the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller on the application show it was adjourned on a joint request having been made by learned counsel for the parties, it is always advisable that such applications are decided at the earliest.
5. Without delving further into the issue, the present revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court concerned to make efforts to hear arguments on the application, preferably on the date fixed before it i.e. 17.12.2025 and thereafter to decide the said application expeditiously.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
Order accordingly.
********