CR-8982-2025 (O [147] Ajinder Sin Sukhjit Sin Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] 13.10.2025 filed under petitioner dismissed. [2] 13 of the E respondent application and tenant averment the applica under:- O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA CR-8982- Date of De der Singh versus jit Singh HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present revis .2025 passed by the Rent Controller, under Order VI Rule 16 & 17 read ioner seeking amendment of written s issed. Petitioner is a tenant facing ev f the East Punjab Urban Rent Restri ndent-landlord. Petitioner filed his w cation on 06.09.2024, whereby he de tenant. By way of present applicatio ent and wants to admit the relationsh application, seeking amendment of “6. I have perused the judic same revealed that earlier applicant/respondent denied his T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH -2025 (O&M) of Decision :15.01.2026 …Petitioner ….Respondent PANKAJ JAIN anaise, Advocate for the petitioner. t revision petition is to the Order date roller, Amritsar, whereby an applicatio read with Section 151 CPC by th ritten statement has been ordered to b ing eviction proceedings under Sectio Restriction Act, 1949 at the hands o his written statement to the evictio he denied the relationship of landlor lication, he wants to withdraw the sa tionship. Rent Controller has dismisse of written statement, observing a udicial file carefully and perusal of t lier in the written statement t his relationship of landlord-tenant wi 1 er dated lication by the ed to be Section ands of eviction landlord the said ismissed ving as of the t the nt with RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.22 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-8982-2025 (O [3] passed by proceeding made in the with respec compared dismissing [4] through rec [5] O&M) respondent/petitioner in the mai framed on 27.11.2024. But now with application for amendmen inadvertence denied his relatio relationship with respondent/pet view, the plea of the respondent from lack of due diligence and relationship with respondent/ applicant/respondent defeated t provisional rent to be assessed b of issues regarding their relation for petitioner evidence, the a change his status. Therefore, a acceptable. This view of mine g Ritu Chopra 2017(2) RC applicant/respondent moved ap statement/reply which caused g case. Therefore, the authority applicant/respondent is also circumstances are different.” Mr. Manaise, counsel for the d by the Rent Controller. It has eedings, the petitioner has admitted in the present eviction proceedings w respect to amendment in the written ared to that in the case of comp issing the application filed by the petit I have heard counsel for the p records of the case. There is a paradigm shift in main petition. Accordingly, issues we now, the applicant/respondent came u ment of written statement as he due lationship and now wants to admit h t/petitioner being landlord-tenant. To m ent is not acceptable as the same suffe and bonafide. Earlier by denying h ent/petitioner in main petition, t ted the right of the applicant regardin sed by this Court. Now, after the framin ationship and when the matter was fix e applicant/respondent now wants e, as discussed above, the same is n ine got support from Gobind Gupta V RCR (Rent) 229 (P&H). T application for amendment of writt sed great delay in final disposal of t rity relied upon by Id. Counsel for t lso not applicable here a facts an or the petitioner, has assailed the ord It has been contended that in oth itted the relationship. The averme dings was an inadvertent mistake. La ritten statement being much liberal complaint, Rent Controller erred petitioner. r the petitioner and have carefully gon in the law relating to the evictio 2 s were me up due to it his To my suffers ng his , the arding aming s fixed nts to is not pta Vs The ritten of the or the s and he order n other verment e. Law beral as rred in lly gone eviction RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.22 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-8982-2025 (O proceeding ‘Rakesh Corporatio provisional disputes re assess the p runs a risk relationship cannot be r [6] a bet. Now raised by h right of the rent. [7] well reason be dismisse [8] disposed of 15.01.2026 ‘R. Sharma' O&M) eedings under State Rent Acts after t esh Wadhawan and others oration and others’, 2002 (5) S isional rent mandatory. There is an tes relationship, there is no obligati s the provisional rent. In the case of d a risk. If at the time of final adjudi ionship of landlord tenant exists, the p ot be read to the aid of the tenant. In the present case, the tenant . Now he cannot be allowed to take d by him, denying relationship has re of the landlord. He has been depriv In view thereof, this Court fi reasoned order passed by the Rent Co smissed. All pending miscellaneous ed off. .2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable after the Supreme Court in the case o ers versus Jagdamba Industri (5) SCC 440, held assessment o an exception to it. Where a tena bligation upon the Rent Controller se of denial of relationship by tenant, h adjudication Rent Controller finds th the proviso appended to Section 13(1 enant having denied relationship playe to take a somersault. The earlier ple has resulted in adversely affecting deprived of payment of the provision ourt finds no reason to interfere in th ent Controller. The same is ordered neous application(s), if any, stand (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 3 case of dustrial ent of a tenant roller to nant, he nds that n 13(1) p played lier plea the visional e in the dered to stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.22 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document