***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) –

This revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Punjab Rent Act’) read with Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed, assailing the order dated 07.08.2024 (wrongly mentioned as 07.08.2023) [Annexure P-1] passed by learned Rent Controller, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, whereby application of the tenant (petitioner herein) to amend his written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been declined.

2. Petition under the provisions of Punjab Rent Act was filed by the landlord – Ram Parkash (respondent herein) on various grounds including the bonafide necessity. It was pleaded by the landlord that he is not in occupation of any other suitable accommodation on the ground floor nor had vacated such premises after commencement of the Punjab Rent Act.

3. As the impugned order indicates that the tenant, i.e. petitioner herein contested the petition. Parties went to the trial. The landlord closed the evidence on 13.03.2024. The respondent of the petition, i.e. tenant Vijay Kumar tendered his examination-in-chief on 26.04.2024, but then instead of appearing for the purpose of cross-examination, he moved an application on 03.07.2024 seeking amendment of the written statement on the ground that it has recently come to the his notice that landlord had another double storey commercial building situated within the municipal town of Nawanshahr, i.e. at Kothi road, Nawanshahr as shown in the site plan annexed with the application and that this property had not been disclosed by the landlord in the petition.

4. Learned Rent Controller has referred to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which enables the Court to permit any of the parties to amend the pleadings at any stage, which may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real controversy in question between the parties. However, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 PC makes it clear that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial.

5. In the present case, the case was already at the stage of respondents’ evidence, when the application for amendment of written statement was moved by the respondent in the petition, i.e. petitioner herein. Simply by stating that he (tenant) had recently come to know about another double storey commercial building to be belonging to the landlords, it could not be stated that the petitioner-tenant could not have raised the matter despite due diligence before commencement of the trial.

6. Not only above, the plea of bonafide necessity is required to be proved by the landlords. In case, the tenant wants to refute the same, he can produce necessary evidence in rebuttal. In case, the tenant finds that landlord has any other property in his occupation, he can produce necessary evidence in this regard. For that purpose, amendment of the written statement is not required.

7. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and after dismissal thereof, present revision petition, appears to have been filed by the tenant with the sole motive to delay the proceedings before the Rent Controller. Finding no merits in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

********