I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) ADMITTEDLY the facts in these two Revision Petitions Nos. 3284 and 3285 of 1982 are identical and thus these are being disposed of together. These are directed against two separate but similar orders in favour of the same defendant -respondent whereby he has been allowed to amend the written statements. The Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that for purposes of this order only the facts stated in the first petition need be adverted to.
(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the Respondent had taken on rent the land in question demarcated in the site plan as 'ABCDEF' from one Biru Ram at a yearly rent of Rs. 204/ - with effect from March 22, 1962. Later this Biru Ram sold this land in two parcels through two different sale deeds in favour of Ashok Kumar and Onkar Chand, the two Petitioners respectively. It is the conceded position that prior to these sales, the Respondent tenant had constructed two shops on the rented land and the area underneath each one of these has been purchased by the two Petitioners. In reply to the application filed by Onkar Petitioner under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short, the Act), the Respondent pleaded "not denied" to the material averment that "the Petitioner is a land owner/landlord of the rented land in dispute and the respondent is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 17/ - under the Petitioner" During the course of trial the Respondent made an application for the amendment of his reply and thereby to add to the same as follows: (i) That previously one Biru Ram son of Ganga Ram was the owner of the property marked in letters ABCDEF which includes the suit property. The Respondent was the tenant of the said Biru Ram with respect to the property ABCDEF at the monthly rent of Rs. 204/ - P.A. The previous position of the boundaries tarlier was as shown in the site plan. The Respondent has executed a rent note dated 22.3.1962 in favour of the said Biru Ram with respect to the whole of the property as shown in letters ABCDEF. The original rent note dated 22.3.1962 is in power and possession of Biru Ram son of Ganga Ram r/o. Urmar. However the Petitioner only purchased a part of the property earlier rented out to the Respondent. The suit property is the part of the property under the tenancy of the Respondent The Petitioner has got no right to file the petition of the part of the rented property. The tenancy of the Respondent cannot be split into parts. The construction of the shop was already in existence earlier to the execution of the rent note dated 22.3.1962 in favour of Biru Ram son of Ganga Ram. Thus the suit property is a shop and not rented land. The petition as alleged is not maintainable and is incompetent as such. The petition is also bad for non -joinder of necessary parties (ii) That the Petitioner owns and possesses so many other such lands and shops within the municipal limits Tanda Urmar at the time of filing the petition and even at present the Petitioner is studying at D A.V. College Jullundur and thus there is no occasion for the Petitioner for his bonafide and requirement as alleged. This prayer of the Respondent has been allowed by the Rent Controller vide his impugned order. The sole submission of Mr. Palli, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that by making the present amendment to his written statement, the Respondent not only seeks to withdraw from the admission already made by him with regard to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties qua the rented premises, but also wants to raise inconsistent pleas and that too at a very belated stage. The Learned Counsel, however, concedes that the amendment as pleaded at (ii) may be permitted to be made and he has no objection to the same. It is only with regard to the first part of the amendment to which he has serious objection.
(3.) HAVING heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at some length, I find that there is no merit in this submission of the Learned Counsel. It is the settled law and has rather been recently reiterated by the final Court in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km Jyoti Sahay : A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 462 that though an admission is a very material piece of evidence against a party making the same, yet the maker of it can always prove it to be wrong and even withdraw the same. Further it is patent from the contents of the application made by the Respondent for seeking this amendment that he does not want to withdraw from or substitute any part of the written statement already filed by him. He only wants to add to it. This addition sought to be made, to me appeals to be explanatory in nature. I thus see no justification to interfere with the impugned order; more so when the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner himself has no objection to the amendment as stated at No. (ii);