NEW BHARAT RICHSHAW CO Vs. ANANDPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN an application filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1959, on 13.6.1997, the ground of ejectment which is relevant for the purposes of the present petition, was that the demised shops were unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The petitionersherein (tenants) had disputed the genuineness of this ground, and the trial was proceeding. But, on 30.8.2006, the petitioners applied for the amendment of written statement. The Rent-Controller, vide the impugned order dated 5.10.2006, refused to grant permission, for the purpose. The petitioners, therefore, have come up to this court, in revision. The amendment asked for is, that earlier too, the respondentherein (landlord) had filed an application for ejectment, against Chanan Shah, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners no.2 to 4, on the ground of dilapidated condition of these shops but after Chanan Shah agreed to increase the rent, a compromise was arrived at between the parties, and the application was withdrawn. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the documents on record, I do not find any merit in the petition. The earlier Civil Revision No.5570 of 2006. -2- petition was filed on 3.9.1975 and was withdrawn on 20.10.1978. Suffice to say that the fact that, that petition was withdrawn, on the basis of compromise, in the year 1978, even if true, would not have any relevancy to, or effect on, the merits of the pending ejectment petition which has been filed on the ground of the shops having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, after a long period of about 19 years. No merit Dismissed.