Parkash Chand Agrawal vs N.P.S. Chawla
1987 Latest Caselaw 181 Del

JUDGMENT

Goswamy, J.

(1) This second appeal by the landlord is directed against the judgment dated 23/11/1978 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the eviction order was set aside and the appeal of the tenant was allowed in part.

(2) In the original petition for eviction, the eviction was sought on the ground that the appellant had no suitable accommodation and he had also to marry his son for whom there was not enough accommodation in the premises. During the course of arguments in this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has filed an application being Cm 836 of 1987 under Order 6Rule 5 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the eviction petition. By this application, the appellant wishes to bring on record certain additional facts. Some of the facts have arisen subsequent to the filing of the original petition and some facts now sought to be raised were existing even at the time of original petition, However, these grounds and facts were not raised in the petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to allow this application to the extent of amending the petition under section 14(l)(e) and not making a new petition under section 14(1)(h). The new facts which have been brought in this application are regarding the insufficiency of accommodation and the ill-health of theappellant. It has also been pleaded that the appellant is owner of l/5th of the property and has thus only three rooms available to him on the first floor anda barsati on the 2nd floor. In the application it has been mentioned that the other co-owners are his brothers and sisters.

(3) In reply to the application, the ownership of the premises by five co-owners has not been admitted, particulary, in view of the admission of the appellant in his statement made before the Rent Controller. It will be for the appellant to meet that admission since the case is. being sent back forretrial.

(4) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the application being Cm 836 of 1987 for amendment of the original petition is allowed as far as it relates to the pleas available to the appellant under section 14(1)(e).The paragraphs relating to the respondent having acquired alternate accommodation will not be taken into consideration. The appellant will file amended petition before the Rent Controller on the next date ofhearing. The Rent Controller will either keep the case with himself or assign it to any Additional Rent Controller who will try and dispose of the entire matter after giving opportunity to the parties to lead such evidences they wish within a period of 8 months but not later than one year from the next date of hearing. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the case is sent back to the Rent Controller for fresh trial after the amended petition in filed. Opportunity will be given to the respondent to die the amended writtenstatement. Mr. Arun Mohan, the learned, counsel for the appellant, states that he should also be allowed to raise the question of pollution and congestion of the locality in which the appellant, at present, is staying. This ground will be covered by section 14(l)(e) for which he had already been permitted. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on the 20th of April,1987. The records be sent back forthwith.