Harjit Kaur v. S.S.Gill (Through Lrs) & ORS.

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJ JAB AND HARYANA ARH Decision: January 24, 2025 IN THE AT CHANDIGA ) Date of D ........Petitioner HARJIT KAUR S.S.GILL (TH R

Versus

ROUGH LRS) & ORS.

........Respondents KESH MANUJA CORAM: HO

Present:

M M M ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARK Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate a Mr. Abhinav Goel, Advocate fo nd r the petitioner.

Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate e for respondent No.1.

**** ANUJA, J. (ORAL) HARKESH MA By y way of present revision peti tion filed under Article 227 of f the Constitutio on of India, challenge has b been laid to an order dated d 01.12.2018 pa assed by the Rent Controlle er, Chandigarh, whereby, an n application file ed on behalf of the petitione r-tenant seeking amendment t of her written s statement stands rejected.

2.

Br riefly stating, in February 20 004, respondent No.1 being g Landlord filed an eviction petition against t he petitioner-tenant from half f portion of SC CO No.84, Sector 17-D, Cha andigarh on the grounds of f arrears of rent t as well as material impairme ent.

3.

In n response, written statemen nt was filed on behalf of the e petitioner-tena ant while submitting that th here was no relationship of f Landlord-tena nt between the parties as the petitioner-tenant was in n occupation as s co-owner having purchased a share in SCO Nos. 83-84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh vide registered sale deed dated 30.06.2000 from one of th e co-sharers.

-24.

Based thereupon, on 21.12.2005, following issues in the aforementioned eviction petition were framed :- 1.

whether the respondents are in arrears of rent since June 2002 to Feb, 2 004?0PP 2.

whether the respondents no.1, 3, 2, and 5 have demolished the wall separating the tenancies and after merging the area of their tenancies 3.

Whether respondent no.4 has sublet the entire area in his exclusive possession without the consent of landlord?OPP 4.

Whether respondent has made the material alternation in the demised premises?OPP 5.

whether the petition is bad for not maintainable?OPD 6.

whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 7.

Whether there is no relationship of landlord & tenant between the parties and respondent is occupying the same as co-sharer?OPD 8.

Whether respondent has already paid the rent w. e.f. 1.4.kl and petitioner is only entitled to the rent to the extent of his share?OPD 9.

Whether there is no change of user of demised premises? OPD 10.

Relief.

5.

Both the parties having concluded their evidence, an application came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner-tenant seeking amendment of written statement for adding preliminary objection No.7 to the following effect:- "Preliminary Objection No. 7 - That the present eviction petition has become infructuous and is not maintainable in view of the passing of final decree in a Partition Suit in the building in question i.e. SCO No. 83-84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh and the tenancy rights, if any were have merged into the ownership of the respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 10.10.2018 and the court of Shri Gaurav Dutta, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh has held that the respondent No.1 as owner in the entire building with share of

-34.555%. It is further submitted that in Chandigarh the fragmentation of property is not permissible and interse sale is not possible and the property has to be sold in open auction and there is every likelihood that the respondent No.1 may purchase the entire building in the said auction, therefore in the present eviction petition after the passing of the final decree the petitioners cannot claim any relief against the respondent No. 1"

6.

The prayer made in the said application was contested on behalf of respondent No.1-Landlord. Upon consideration, the Rent Controller vide order dated 01.12.2018 dismissed the same. Aggrieved against it, the present revision petition has been preferred. 7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendments sought to be incorporated in the written statement with regard to passing of the final decree dated 10.10.2018 for partition was essential for determination of the eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent No.1 being a relevant subsequent event having material bearing and thus, the prayer made in the application was required to be allowed.

8.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1Landlord submits that a plea with respect to non-maintainability of the eviction petition; based on the petitioner-tenant having become one of the co-owners having purchased the share from one of the co-owner was already part of the original written statement and thus, no amendment in the written statement as prayed for was essential and accordingly, the impugned order warrants no interference.

-49.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 10.

In the present facts, a perusal of the original written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner-tenant shows that a clear-cut plea regarding the petitioner-tenant being in occupation of a portion of the demised premises being one of its co-owners having purchased a share therein was clearly set up therein and thus, no amendment as prayed for was required to be incorporated in her written statement based on the final partition decree dated 10.10.2018 whereby, it was merely determined that the petitioner-tenant was to get 4.55% share in SCO Nos.83-84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. Moreover, issue No.7 as framed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 21.10.

2005 also takes care of the plea set up by the petitioner-tenant of she being in occupation of the demised premises as one of its co-sharer and thus, in such circumstances, the amendment sought for by the petitioner-tenant was not essential, being merely reiteration of the substantive plea already forming part of the original pleadings and the case set up. Even a preliminary decree dated 19.05.2011 forms part of record as Ex.RD and thus, the amendment sought for is not required for the purpose of adjudication fo the rent petition. Moreover, the filing of application is apparently an act of delaying the final disposal of the ejectment petition pending adjudication since 2004.

11.

In view of the above, no merit can be found in the present petition and the same is thus, dismissed.

-512.

Considering the fact that instant petition was filed in 2004, Rent Controller is directed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. 13.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 24.01.2025 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No