Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, to adjudicate upon the Rent Petition titled as Jaswant Singh v. B.L. Bajaj within a time frame as earlier ordered by this Court.
(2.) IN brief, the Petitioner has filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short " the Act") in the Court of Ld. Rent Controller, Chandigarh, for ejectment of the Respondents, on the ground of personal necessity. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that Respondent No. 3 came to this Court by way of Civil Revision No. 4929 of 2008, challenging the order passed by learned Rent Controller whereby his prayer for amendment of his written statement was declined. The said revision petition was initially contested by the parties but ultimately, the Court had recorded in its order as under: Mr. Dhindsa has stated that since the proposed amendment is nothing but only a ploy to prolong the matter, therefore, he would not contest the same in view of acrimonious allegations between the landlord and tenant, if a time bound conclusion of the rent proceedings is ordered. Mr. Dhindsa further stated that he will agree to amendment only to ward off the delay. Without making any observations to the relevance of the amendment, in view of the statement made, the present revision petition is allowed qua the amendment sought to the carried out. The proposed amendment will be taken on record within 15 days from today. Thereafter, Mr. Dhindsa will be permitted to file amended replication within 7 days after the proposed amendment is taken on record. A direction is given to the Rent Controller to decide the eviction petition within six months from today. This order has been passed as the relations between the parties are not harmonious and amicable and they are approaching the police for lodging of the DDRs and FIRs. The parties to give effect to this order, shall appear before the Rent Controller, on or before 28.11.2008. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that even at that time when the revision petition was filed against the order declining the amendment of the written statement, it was not contested by him only for the purpose of avoiding delay in the eviction petition and on his request the Court had passed the order directing the Rent Controller to decide the eviction petition in a particular time frame i.e. within a period of six months from 28.11.2008. He further submits that he had filed a Civil Revision No. 2178 of 2009 against the order passed by the Learned Rent Controller whereby his applications under Order XXII, Rule 10, Order VI, Rule 17 and Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC") were dismissed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh by a composite order dated 4.4.2009. The petition was duly contested by the Respondents but eventually the following order was passed: Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the Rent Controller cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Since it is not in dispute that the Petitioner -landlord has already averred in the Eviction Petition that he requires the demised premises for his son Jagjit Singh and his grandsons, the impleadment of his son as a co -Petitioner after transfer of 50 percent share in the demised premises, per se, does not change the ground of eviction or nature of the proceedings. The apprehension expressed by the Respondents No. 2 and 3 that the transfer of ownership in favour of the Petitioner's son Jagjit Singh is a devise to throw them out of the premises, appears to be misconceived and without any basis for the reason that once they have taken a plea that they are direct tenants under the landlord, the Rent Controller is obliged to frame an issue to that effect and return a finding. For the reasons afore -stated, the Revision Petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 4.4.2009 is hereby set aside the application moved by the Petitioner -landlord under Order 6, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure is ordered to be allowed. The Petitioner -landlord shall be entitled to file an amended Eviction Petition within ten days to which Respondent No. 1 to 3 shall be entitled to file their respective amended written statements. The Rent Controller shall, thereafter, make an earnest efforts to dispose of the Eviction Petition in the light of the observations already made by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2008 passed in Civil Revision No. 4929 of 2008
(3.) FROM the perusal of the aforesaid order, it is apparent that the landlord wanted to amend the Eviction Petition. It is now at the stage of evidence of the Petitioner who is being cross examined by the tenant. In response to the notice of motion issued in the Revision Petition, the Respondents have filed a reply to the revision petition because it is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is taken on record by allowing Civil Miscellaneous No. 7206 of 2011.;