IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 106 CR-2084-2026 Date of Decision.:06.03.2026 Amit Kumar @ Amit Arora …..Pe--oner Vs. Rajeev Tuteja and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. S.K. Arya, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present revision peon has been filed by the tenant– peoner assailing the order dated 04.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, whereby the applicaon filed by the tenant - peoner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Secon 151 CPC seeking amendment of the wri2en statement in the evicon peon was dismissed. 2. The evicon peon under Secon 13 of the Rent Act was filed by the respondent–landlord seeking evicon of the peoner from the demised premises. During the pendency of the proceedings and a5er commencement of trial, the peoner moved an applicaon for amendment of the wri2en statement seeking to incorporate certain pleas quesoning the tle of the landlord and dispung the relaonship of landlord and tenant between the pares. The proposed amendment was primarily based on the plea that during cross-examinaon of the landlord, it allegedly came to light that the sale deed produced by him related to another property and not to the demised premises. On that basis, the tenant sought to plead that the landlord had no tle over the demised NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2084-2026 premises and therefore, lacked locus standi to maintain the evicon peon. 3. The learned Rent Controller, a5er hearing the pares, dismissed the said applicaon holding that the amendment was sought a5er the commencement of trial and that the tenant had failed to demonstrate due diligence as required under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It was further observed that the tenant was a2empng to change his stand by withdrawing earlier admissions regarding the relaonship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller also noced that in view of Secon 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, a tenant is estopped from denying the tle of the landlord during the connuance of tenancy. 4. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the peoner contends that the amendment sought was necessary for determining the real controversy between the pares and that the trial Court adopted an overly technical approach while rejecng the applicaon. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the peoner and have gone through the record. 6. The scope of interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdicon is limited. Unless the order passed by the Court below suffers from patent illegality, jurisdiconal error or material irregularity, this Court would not interfere with a discreonary order relang to amendment of pleadings. 7. Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. However, the proviso inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 clearly spulates that once the trial has commenced, an amendment can be allowed only if the party seeking amendment demonstrates that despite due diligence, the ma2er could not NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2084-2026 have been raised before the commencement of trial. The requirement of due diligence is mandatory and acts as a restraint on belated amendments which are intended to delay the proceedings. 8. In the present case, the record clearly shows that the amendment applicaon was filed a5er issues had been framed and a5er cross-examinaon of witnesses had already commenced. The peoner has failed to show any circumstance indicang that the facts sought to be introduced by way of amendment were not within his knowledge earlier or that despite due diligence he could not have raised such pleas in the original wri2en statement. The Rent Controller has rightly noced that the tenant had earlier admi2ed the relaonship of landlord and tenant and is now a2empng to take a completely inconsistent plea by quesoning the landlord’s tle. 9. It is also well se2led that under Secon 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, a tenant who has been let into possession by the landlord is estopped from dispung the tle of the landlord during the subsistence of the tenancy. In evicon proceedings under the Rent Act, the tenant cannot be permi2ed to challenge the tle of the landlord or to set up a plea which has the effect of denying the relaonship of landlord and tenant, parcularly when such relaonship was earlier admi2ed. 10. Furthermore, allowing the proposed amendment at this stage would clearly prejudice the landlord and would have the effect of reopening the enre trial, thereby delaying the adjudicaon of the evicon peon, which is otherwise required to be decided expediously. 11. The reasoning recorded by the learned Rent Controller reflects a proper appreciaon of the statutory requirements under Order VI Rule 17 CPC as well as the se2led principles governing amendments of pleadings. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2084-2026 jurisdiconal error warranng interference by this Court in revisional jurisdicon. 12. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision peon, the same is dismissed. 13. Pending applicaons, if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE March 06, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document