CR No. 3704 of 2022 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:101663 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3704 of 2022 (O&M) Kamal Kumar & Another …Pe--oner Versus Urmail Kumari and others …Respondents Reserved on: July 21, 2026 Pronounced on: July 23, 2026 Pronounced fully/opera-ve part : Fully * * * * CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued By:- Mr. V. K. Sandhir, Advocate for the peoners. Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for the Respondents. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present revision peon under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India has been preferred by the respondents-tenants assailing the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, whereby their applicaon under Order VI Rule 17 read with Secon 151 CPC (Annexure P-3), as moved during proceedings of an evicon peon bearing RP No. 533-2014 tled ‘Urmail Kumari etc. vs Sonia Kumari etc.’, seeking amendment of the wri4en statement, has been dismissed. 2. The landlords instuted the evicon peon on the ground of bona fide personal necessity under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restricon Act, 1949. During the pendency of the proceedings, the tenants moved the present applicaon pleading that subsequent to the instuon of the evicon peon, the landlords had allegedly constructed about fi:een commercial shops in the same building and had even displayed a board offering Page No. 1 of Total 7 Pages SARITA RANI 2026.07.23 16:17 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No. 3704 of 2022 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:101663 those shops for rent. On that basis, it was sought to be pleaded that the alleged subsequent acquision of substanal commercial accommodaon had materially affected, if not exnguished, the plea of bona fide personal requirement set up in the evicon peon. 3. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the applicaon holding, inter alia, that the plea projected by the tenants stood falsified by the sale deed dated 10.03.2016 and by the admissions made by RW-3 – Sonia Kumari and RW-8 – Kamal Kumar; that the proposed amendment had no nexus with the controversy; and that the tenants had been filing repeated applicaons only to prolong the proceedings. 4. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the peoners-tenants contends that the amendment is founded enrely upon subsequent events, which have taken place during pendency of the evicon peon. It is argued that such subsequent developments have a direct bearing upon the issue of bona fide requirement and, therefore, deserve to be brought on record. It is further submi4ed that at the stage of considering an amendment applicaon, the Court is not expected to adjudicate upon the truthfulness of the proposed plea or evaluate the evidence in support thereof. 5. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondents – landlords submits that evicon peon is pending since 2014 and that tenants are making repeated a4empts to delay the proceedings by moving one a:er other applicaon, as also noted by the Rent Controller. Defending the impugned order, he prayed for dismissal of the revision. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the pares at length and having carefully perused the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 7. The object underlying Order VI Rule 17 CPC is to enable the Court to determine the real controversy between the pares. While the proviso imposes restricons a:er commencement of trial, the se4led judicial principle is equally well recognised that where the amendment is founded upon events occurring Page No. 2 of Total 7 Pages SARITA RANI 2026.07.23 16:17 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No. 3704 of 2022 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:101663 subsequent to instuon of the proceedings, the Court ordinarily adopts a liberal approach, parcularly, where such events have a direct bearing on the relief claimed. 8. The controversy before this Court does not really concern the permissibility of a roune amendment of pleadings. The amendment sought by the peoners-tenants is founded upon alleged events which, according to them, came into existence during the pendency of the evicon peon. The case, therefore, has to be examined on the touchstone of the se4led principles governing consideraon of subsequent events in landlord-tenant ligaon rather than merely on the general principles regulang amendment of pleadings. 9. The evicon peon has been instuted by the respondents- landlords on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. During pendency of the proceedings, the tenants moved the present applicaon alleging that the landlords had, subsequent to instuon of the evicon peon, constructed about fi:een commercial shops in the same property and had displayed a board inving prospecve tenants. On the strength of those alleged developments, it was pleaded that the subsequent availability of substanal commercial accommodaon materially affected the plea of bona fide necessity and, therefore, deserved to be brought on record by way of amendment of the wri4en statement. 10. The landlords disputed the correctness of those allegaons. Accepng their objecon, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the amendment applicaon by referring to the sale deed dated 10.03.2016 and certain statements made by RW-3 and RW-8, ulmately concluding that the plea regarding construcon of fi:een shops stood falsified. 11. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Rent Controller approached the controversy from an incorrect legal perspecve. There is a clear disncon between considering whether a subsequent event deserves to be brought on record and adjudicang upon the truthfulness of such event. The first exercise falls within the scope of an applicaon under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The second Page No. 3 of Total 7 Pages SARITA RANI 2026.07.23 16:17 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No. 3704 of 2022 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:101663 falls exclusively within the domain of the trial a:er pares have been afforded an opportunity to lead evidence. Unfortunately, the impugned order proceeds directly to the second stage. 12. The learned Rent Controller has not merely examined whether the proposed amendment is relevant to the controversy. Rather, by relying upon documentary evidence and oral tesmony already available on record, the learned Rent Controller has recorded a finding that the plea sought to be incorporated "stands negated". Such an exercise, in the considered opinion of this Court, was wholly outside the scope of enquiry while deciding an amendment applicaon. 13. The legal posion in this regard admits of li4le ambiguity. In Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others v. K.K. Modi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 385, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that while considering an applicaon under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the Court is not required to pronounce upon the correctness or otherwise of the proposed pleadings. The Court merely examines whether the amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy and whether any legally recognised ground exists for refusing such amendment. 14. The same principle was reiterated in Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and others, (2009) 10 SCC 84, wherein the Supreme Court held that the disputed quesons touching the merits of the amendment are not to be adjudicated at that stage. 15. The impugned order, however, proceeds precisely on an appreciaon of the merits of the proposed defence. Whether fi:een shops have in fact been constructed, whether those shops belong to the landlords, whether they are suitable for the purpose pleaded in the evicon peon, whether they have already been leased out and whether their availability has any bearing upon the landlords' requirement are all quesons of fact, which necessarily require adjudicaon a:er pares lead evidence. None of those issues could legimately have been decided while considering the amendment applicaon. Page No. 4 of Total 7 Pages SARITA RANI 2026.07.23 16:17 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No. 3704 of 2022 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:101663 16. Further, the amendment is founded enrely upon subsequent events. It is not the case of the landlords that the alleged construcon of the fi:een shops had already taken place before instuon of the evicon peon and that the tenants deliberately omi4ed to raise the plea in the wri4en statement. On the contrary, the amendment proceeds on the specific asseron that the addional commercial accommodaon came into existence only during pendency of the evicon proceedings. Thus, the amendment is founded upon supervening circumstances, which admi4edly were incapable of being pleaded when the wri4en statement was originally filed. 17. The law relang to subsequent events in landlord-tenant ligaon is equally well se4led. In Pasupule- Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770, the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritavely held that where subsequent events materially affect the right to relief, the Court is not only entled but is duty bound to take noce of such developments in order to render complete jusce between the pares. The Court observed that ligaon cannot be decided in isolaon from material events, which occur during its pendency, if those events have a direct bearing on the relief ulmately to be granted. 18. The same principle was reiterated in Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 623, wherein it was held that in proceedings seeking evicon on the ground of bona fide personal requirement, the requirement must connue to subsist ll the final adjudicaon of the lis. Consequently, subsequent events which materially affect such requirement cannot ordinarily be ignored. 19. Likewise, in Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal, (2002) 2 SCC 256, the Supreme Court again recognised that subsequent developments affecng entlement to relief are legimate ma4ers for consideraon and the Court is not powerless to take cognizance thereof merely because they occurred a:er instuon of the proceedings. 20. The above principles apply with full vigour to the facts of the present case. If the allegaon of the tenants is ulmately established that during Page No. 5 of Total 7 Pages SARITA RANI 2026.07.23 16:17 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No. 3704 of 2022 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:101663 pendency of the evicon peon the landlords have constructed fi:een addional commercial shops, the said circumstance may or may not ulmately defeat the plea of bona fide requirement. That queson is enrely a ma4er for adjudicaon by the Rent Controller a:er appreciaon of evidence. Nevertheless, it cannot possibly be said that such a development is irrelevant to the controversy. Availability of substanal addional commercial accommodaon during pendency of an evicon peon founded upon personal necessity is a circumstance which bears a direct nexus with the principal issue requiring adjudicaon. 21. Consequently, the proposed amendment cannot be characterised either as unnecessary or foreign to the controversy. 22. The learned Rent Controller has also observed that the tenants had been filing repeated applicaons with a view to prolong the proceedings. Undoubtedly, the Court is always jusfied in curbing dilatory taccs adopted by ligants. However, every interlocutory applicaon cannot be presumed to be mala fide merely because earlier applicaons had also been filed. The Court is sll required to independently examine the nature of the parcular amendment sought. Once the amendment is found to be based upon subsequent events having a direct bearing upon the issue of bona fide requirement, the previous conduct of the tenants cannot, by itself, constute a sufficient ground to foreclose consideraon of such events. 23. It also deserves to be menoned that permiHng amendment does not amount to accepng the correctness of the allegaons made therein. The amendment merely enables the tenants to place the alleged subsequent developments on record. The landlords remain fully entled to deny each of those allegaons by filing consequenal pleadings and by leading rebu4al evidence. The truthfulness, effect and legal consequences of the alleged construcon of fi:een shops shall necessarily be determined only a:er appreciaon of evidence and not on the basis of observaons made while deciding the amendment applicaon. Page No. 6 of Total 7 Pages SARITA RANI 2026.07.23 16:17 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No. 3704 of 2022 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:101663 24. For these reasons, this Court is sasfied that the learned Rent Controller commi4ed a jurisdiconal error in rejecng the amendment applicaon by virtually adjudicang the merits of the proposed defence instead of confining itself to the limited queson whether the alleged subsequent events deserved to be brought on record. 25. Accordingly, the revision peon is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.08.2022 is set aside. The applicaon filed by the peoners-tenants under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is allowed. 26. The amended wri4en statement shall be filed within two weeks. The respondents-landlords shall be at liberty to file consequenal replicaon within four weeks therea:er. Both pares shall be entled to lead addional evidence, strictly confined to the subsequent events sought to be introduced by way of amendment and the rebu4al thereof. 27. It is clarified that this Court has expressed no opinion whatsoever on the correctness of the allegaons regarding construcon of the fi:een shops or on the effect thereof upon the respondents' plea of bona fide personal requirement. All such quesons shall be decided independently by the learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings, evidence and the applicable law, uninfluenced by any observaons made either in the impugned order or in the present order. 28. Since the evicon peon has remained pending for a considerable period, the learned Rent Controller shall make every endeavour to conclude the proceedings expediously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a cerfied copy of this order. Pending applicaon(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. July 23, 2026 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No Whether reportable? : Yes/No Uploaded on: July 23, 2026 Page No. 7 of Total 7 Pages SARITA RANI 2026.07.23 16:17 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order