IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 111 CR-2390-2025 Date of Decision.:25.04.2025 Bihari Lal …..Pe,,oner Vs. Gian Chand .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent- caveator. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of this revision peon, peoner assails order dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure P-7), whereby learned Rent Controller, Nakodar has allowed an applicaon under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the peon filed by the landlord. 2. Peon under Secon 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restricon Act, 1949 was filed by Gian Chand (respondent herein) seeking ejectment of the tenant Bihari Lal (peoner herein) from the demised shop. In fact, the peoner as well as tenant were earlier the tenants under one Lachman Dass. Lachman Dass and Nasib Chand, two brothers were stated to be the owners of 08 shops forming part and parcel of same property. Four shops fall on Nurmahal Road and remaining four on the Shankar bye-pass road along with the rear poron. It was claimed by the landlord that four shops falling on Nurmahal Road were under the occupaon of Lachman Dass, whereas four shops falling on Shankar bye- pass road were under the occupaon of his brother Nasib Chand. In one shop each, peoner Gian Chand and respondent Bihari Lal were tenants. A9er the death of Lachman Dass, paron/exchange took place between LRs of Lachman Dass and Nasib Chand. Nasib Chand became owner of the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.28 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2390-2025 four shops, which were earlier under the occupaon of Lachman Dass. From Nasib Chand, peoner Gian Chand purchased the four shops including the shop under his tenancy and also the demised shop under the tenancy of Bihari Lal. This way, Gian Chand claimed to be landlord of the shop in dispute and had sought ejectment on various grounds. 3. The case was at the stage of addressing arguments on the assessment of rent, when applicaon was moved under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to elaborate about the ownership of the property. Said applicaon has been allowed. 4. Assailing the impugned order, it is contended by learned counsel that the amendment sought by the landlord is contrary to the pleas taken in a civil suit and therefore, the amendment should not have been allowed. 5. This Court does not find merit in the contenon. As has been noced by the learned Rent Controller in the impugned order that trial has not commenced ll date, as even issues have not been framed. The amendment sought by the landlord is only elaboraon of certain facts. Order VI Rule 17 CPC empowers the Court to allow either of the party to amend the pleadings at any stage. The amendment is to be allowed liberally. The tenant i.e. peoner herein will get the opportunity to controvert the pleas to be taken in the amended peon by the landlord, by filing amended reply. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Rent Controller. No merits. Dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 25, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.28 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document