CR-4475-2022 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Shiv Shankar Sadhna Rani CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba MANDEEP PANNU 1. Present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the Controller, Palwal, whereby the application dated 18.10.2021 filed by the petitioner/tenant for amendment of the written statement came to be dismissed. Brief facts 2. The case set up by the petitioner/ten filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, in which the present revisionist/tenant submitted a detailed written statement. During the pendency of the said e came to know that in respect of the adjoining shop owned by the same landlord, an eviction order had already been passed by the Rent Controller on 27.02.2018, which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority on 23.04. knowledge of these facts, the revisionist prayed for inserting paragraph No. 5(g)(ii) in the written statement, and for this purpose, moved an application for amendment dated 18.10.2021 before the Rent Controller. (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : VERSUS CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. Present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Palwal, whereby the application dated 18.10.2021 filed by the petitioner/tenant for amendment of the written statement came to be dismissed. The case set up by the petitioner/ten filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, in which the present revisionist/tenant submitted a detailed written statement. During the pendency of the said e came to know that in respect of the adjoining shop owned by the same landlord, an eviction order had already been passed by the Rent Controller on 27.02.2018, which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority on 23.04. knowledge of these facts, the revisionist prayed for inserting paragraph No. 5(g)(ii) in the written statement, and for this purpose, moved an application for amendment dated 18.10.2021 before the Rent Controller. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4475-2022 (O&M) Decided on :- 20.08.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. Present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Palwal, whereby the application dated 18.10.2021 filed by the petitioner/tenant for amendment of the written statement came to be dismissed. The case set up by the petitioner/tenant is that the respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, in which the present revisionist/tenant submitted a detailed written statement. During the pendency of the said eviction petition, the revisionist came to know that in respect of the adjoining shop owned by the same landlord, an eviction order had already been passed by the Rent Controller on 27.02.2018, which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority on 23.04.2021. On gaining knowledge of these facts, the revisionist prayed for inserting paragraph No. 5(g)(ii) in the written statement, and for this purpose, moved an application for amendment - Present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Palwal, whereby the application dated 18.10.2021 filed by the ant is that the respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, in which the present revisionist/tenant submitted a detailed viction petition, the revisionist came to know that in respect of the adjoining shop owned by the same landlord, an eviction order had already been passed by the Rent Controller on 27.02.2018, which 2021. On gaining knowledge of these facts, the revisionist prayed for inserting paragraph No. 5(g)(ii) in the written statement, and for this purpose, moved an application for amendment TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4475-2022 (O&M) 3. It is the case of th dismissed the amendment application on the ground that in the eviction proceedings relating to the adjoining shop, possession has not yet been delivered to the landlord and that a revision petition a Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the amendment ought to have been allowed because the passing of an eviction order in respect of the adjoining shop constitutes an pendency of the present petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of personal necessity, once an order of eviction of the adjoining plea of bona fide necessity raised in the present case loses its force. Thus, according to the tenant, the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. 4. I have heard learned counsel f through the record with due care. 5. The facts regarding the decision of another eviction petition filed by the landlord in respect of the adjoining shop are not in dispute. It is also admitted that the said eviction order was upheld in appeal on 23.04.2021. However, it is equally undisputed that the revision petition against the said order is pending before this Court and that possession of the adjoining shop has not yet been delivered to the landlord. 6. In such possession of the adjoining shop till date. Merely because an eviction order has been passed in respect of other premises, it cannot be said that the bona fide requirement of the landlord for t terms to the landlord by contending that because an eviction order has been passed regarding the adjoining shop, the necessity of the landlord no longer survives. It is for (O&M) It is the case of the petitioner/tenant that the learned Rent Controller has dismissed the amendment application on the ground that in the eviction proceedings relating to the adjoining shop, possession has not yet been delivered to the landlord and that a revision petition against the said eviction order is still pending before this Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the amendment ought to have been allowed because the passing of an eviction order in respect of the adjoining shop constitutes an intervening change in circumstances during the pendency of the present rent petition. It was further argued that since the present petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of personal necessity, once an order of eviction of the adjoining shop has been passed in favour of the landlord, the plea of bona fide necessity raised in the present case loses its force. Thus, according to the tenant, the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist/tenant and have gone through the record with due care. The facts regarding the decision of another eviction petition filed by the landlord in respect of the adjoining shop are not in dispute. It is also admitted that the on order was upheld in appeal on 23.04.2021. However, it is equally undisputed that the revision petition against the said order is pending before this Court and that possession of the adjoining shop has not yet been delivered to the landlord. In such a situation, it is apparent that the landlord has not obtained possession of the adjoining shop till date. Merely because an eviction order has been passed in respect of other premises, it cannot be said that the bona fide requirement of the landlord for the present premises stands extinguished. A tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord by contending that because an eviction order has been passed regarding the adjoining shop, the necessity of the landlord no longer survives. It is for -2- e petitioner/tenant that the learned Rent Controller has dismissed the amendment application on the ground that in the eviction proceedings relating to the adjoining shop, possession has not yet been delivered to the landlord gainst the said eviction order is still pending before this Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the amendment ought to have been allowed because the passing of an eviction order in respect of the intervening change in circumstances during the . It was further argued that since the present rent petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of personal necessity, once an shop has been passed in favour of the landlord, the plea of bona fide necessity raised in the present case loses its force. Thus, according to the tenant, the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. or the revisionist/tenant and have gone The facts regarding the decision of another eviction petition filed by the landlord in respect of the adjoining shop are not in dispute. It is also admitted that the on order was upheld in appeal on 23.04.2021. However, it is equally undisputed that the revision petition against the said order is pending before this Court and that possession of the adjoining shop has not yet been delivered to the landlord. a situation, it is apparent that the landlord has not obtained possession of the adjoining shop till date. Merely because an eviction order has been passed in respect of other premises, it cannot be said that the bona fide requirement of he present premises stands extinguished. A tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord by contending that because an eviction order has been passed regarding the adjoining shop, the necessity of the landlord no longer survives. It is for - e petitioner/tenant that the learned Rent Controller has dismissed the amendment application on the ground that in the eviction proceedings relating to the adjoining shop, possession has not yet been delivered to the landlord gainst the said eviction order is still pending before this Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the amendment ought to have been allowed because the passing of an eviction order in respect of the intervening change in circumstances during the rent petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of personal necessity, once an shop has been passed in favour of the landlord, the plea of bona fide necessity raised in the present case loses its force. Thus, according or the revisionist/tenant and have gone The facts regarding the decision of another eviction petition filed by the landlord in respect of the adjoining shop are not in dispute. It is also admitted that the on order was upheld in appeal on 23.04.2021. However, it is equally undisputed that the revision petition against the said order is pending before this Court and that possession of the adjoining shop has not yet been delivered to the landlord. a situation, it is apparent that the landlord has not obtained possession of the adjoining shop till date. Merely because an eviction order has been passed in respect of other premises, it cannot be said that the bona fide requirement of he present premises stands extinguished. A tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord by contending that because an eviction order has been passed regarding the adjoining shop, the necessity of the landlord no longer survives. It is for TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4475-2022 (O&M) the landlord to de Court cannot compel him to restrict his claim only to the adjoining shop. 7. Further, the application for amendment was moved at a belated stage, when the case was already fixed for rebu an amendment at that stage would only result in prolonging the litigation. Even otherwise, the Rent Controller, while adjudicating upon the issue of bona fide necessity, is always competent to take judicial notice such as the passing of an eviction order in respect of the adjoining shop. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the tenant if the amendment is not allowed. 8. In these circumstances, learned Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the amendment application filed by the tenant. The impugned order perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Conclusion 9. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present civil revision petition stands dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 20, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) the landlord to decide the manner in which he intends to utilise his property, and the Court cannot compel him to restrict his claim only to the adjoining shop. Further, the application for amendment was moved at a belated stage, when the case was already fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. Allowing such an amendment at that stage would only result in prolonging the litigation. Even otherwise, the Rent Controller, while adjudicating upon the issue of bona fide necessity, is always competent to take judicial notice such as the passing of an eviction order in respect of the adjoining shop. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the tenant if the amendment is not allowed. In these circumstances, this Court is learned Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the amendment application filed by the tenant. The impugned order dated 30.09.2022 does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present civil revision petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- cide the manner in which he intends to utilise his property, and the Court cannot compel him to restrict his claim only to the adjoining shop. Further, the application for amendment was moved at a belated stage, ttal evidence and arguments. Allowing such an amendment at that stage would only result in prolonging the litigation. Even otherwise, the Rent Controller, while adjudicating upon the issue of bona fide necessity, is always competent to take judicial notice of the subsequent developments such as the passing of an eviction order in respect of the adjoining shop. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the tenant if the amendment is not allowed. this Court is of the considered opinion that learned Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the amendment application filed by the 30.09.2022 does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present civil revision petition Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - cide the manner in which he intends to utilise his property, and the Further, the application for amendment was moved at a belated stage, ttal evidence and arguments. Allowing such an amendment at that stage would only result in prolonging the litigation. Even otherwise, the Rent Controller, while adjudicating upon the issue of bona fide of the subsequent developments such as the passing of an eviction order in respect of the adjoining shop. Thus, no that the learned Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the amendment application filed by the 30.09.2022 does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present civil revision petition TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document