R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's revision and has been directed against the order dated 15.2.2001 passed by the Appellant Authority, Ludhiana which dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/tenant holding that the same was not competent.
(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner :- Lakhbir Singh respondent earlier filed a petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of Pritam Singh from the building consisting of one room with verandah, open space and deodi part of building No. B-XI-429, situated in Field Ganj, Kucha Harnam Dass, Ludhiana, fully described in the head-note of the petition. The notice of the petition was given to the respondent-tenant Pritam Singh, who filed an application for permission to contest the petition and the same was allowed by the Rent Controller on 1.6.1997. When the proceedings were pending before the Rent Controller, an application was moved under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the respondent-landlord praying that the ejectment petition earlier filed under Section 13-A of the Act No. 3 of the 1949 may be treated in the alternative as an application under Section 13 of the Act. This application was allowed vide order dated 13.9.1989 passed by the Rent Controller. The order runs as follows :- "This order will dispose of an application for amendment of petition filed U/O 6 Rule 17 CPC of the ground that applicant has sought eviction of the respondent from building u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on the ground of personal necessity. The demised premises were let out to two different tenants one portion was let out to Manmohan Singh and other to the respondent. The applicant filed two petitions u/s 13-A one against respondent and one against Manmohan Singh. The petition against Manmohan Singh was accepted by Rent Controller on 20.8.88. The applicant has taken possession in April 1989 from Manmohan Singh. It is asserted that on account of change in circumstances the applicant want to amend the plaint to claim the ejectment of respondent u/s 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act in the alternative. It is prayed that in the interest of justice amendment be allowed. 2. The application is resisted on the ground that proposed amendment will put forth a new case and introduce a new cause of action. The application is time barred and is also hit by principle of estoppel and waiver. On merits it is asserted that applicant is permanent resident of Lucknow. He had raised two separate and independent quarters. Both the ejectment applications filed by applicant were independent and it was not mentioned that the applicant requires both these portions for his personal necessity. It is asserted that new case is being introduced by the proposed amendment on the basis of new cause of action. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the proposed amendment will introduce altogether a new case and through the proposed amendment the petitioner wants to withdrawn from the election he made earlier in filing petition u/s 13-A. He also contended that petitioner has availed the remedy u/s 13-A and now he is estopped from seeking the amendment. 4. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that in the interest of justice application be allowed so that matter in controversy be decided effectively and completely on merits. The present petition u/s 13-A was filed alongwith another petition under the same Section against Respondent and one Manmohan Singh by the petitioner in the year 1986. Admittedly petition against one Manmohan Singh was accepted and possession of the portion of the building (?) occupation of Manmohan Singh has been taken by petitioner in April, 1989. Through the proposed amendment the application only intends to claim ejectment u/s 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 in the alternative. The ground of personal necessity has also been taken in the petition. Counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments stated at bar that no new evidence is to be adduced by the applicant in case proposed amendment is allowed. No prejudice will occasion to the respondent by the proposed amendment as no new evidence will be led. Furthermore the proposed amendment will avoid further multiplicity of proceedings between the parties as matter in the controversy between them will be decided more effectively and completely. Further more the amendment has been also necessitated on account of changed circumstances i.e. acceptance of connected petition u/s 13-A. Keeping in view the circumstances application is allowed compensating respondent with Rs. 100/- as costs." In the petition under Section 13 of the Act the Rent Controller framed issues on 27.7.1987. An Additional issue was also framed on 25.2.1987. Thereafter the issues were struck afresh on 28.11.1989 after the passing of aforesaid order. These issues are reproduced as under in order to appraise the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties :- "1. Whether there is relationship as landlord and tenant between the parties ? OPA 2. Whether the petitioner bonafide requires the demised premises for his use and occupation? OPA 3. What is the rate of rent of the demised premises ? OP Parties. 4. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition ? OPR 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties ? OPR 6. Whether petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPR 7. Whether written reply is liable to be rejected as alleged, if so, its effect ? OPA 8. What is the effect of ejectment order passed by Shri Bhagwan Singh, RC, Ludhiana ? OPR 9. Whether the composite application under Section 13-A of the Act is not maintainable as alleged ? If so its effect ? OPR 10. Whether the petition is mala fide, false and frivolous, if so its effect ? OPR 11. What is the effect of previous litigation in respect of demised premises ? OPR 12. Relief."
(3.) FINALLY , the Rent Controller gave specific findings on various issues and vide order dated 31.10.2000 passed the ejectment order against the petitioner/tenant and gave him two-month time to vacate the demised premises.;