J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Ferozepur, dated October 28, 1989, whereby the application filed by the landlord for the amendment of the ejectment application was dismissed.
(2.) ORIGINALLY , the ejectment application was filed in the year 1987, when the parties had closed their evidence, the landlord moved an application for amendment of the petition as to include the plea that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises; hence he was liable for ejectment. That application was contested on behalf of the tenant. The allegation made therein were denied. It was asserted that the tenant was running his business in the shop and, therefore, no question of this ceasing to occupy the same arose. However, the learned Rent Controller decided the said application on merits and came to the conclusion that the landlord had failed to prove that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the whole approach of the Rent Controller was wrong and the illegal. No such finding could be given at the stage. That was an application for amendment only which could be either allowed or declined but no finding as such could be given as to whether the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises or not. That question would have arisen only if the amendment was allowed and the parties were directed to lead evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the tenant submitted that it may be that the Rent Controller had decided the application on merits, but it was an independent ground available to the landlord for which he may file a separate ejectment application. Since in the present case the parties have closed their evidence, the application for amendment was filed with an intention to delay the proceedings further and thus to harass the tenant unnecessarily.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Of course, the approach of the learned Rent Controller in this behalf was wrong and illegal. In the application for amendment, it could not be held as to whether the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises or not. The said application could either be dismissed or allowed. This proposition is not being contested either by the tenant-respondent. Since it is an independent ground which is available to the landlord, he may file an ejectment application on that ground and the impugned order will not stand in his way in any manner. With these observations, the civil revision is disposed of.;