J.M.TANDON, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a tenant of the shop of the respondents in Tripri town, Patiala, at Rs. 60/- per month. In August, 1976, the respondents sought ejectment of the petitioner on the grounds of non-payment of rent and the shop premises having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The arrears of rent were tendered by due date. The Rent Controller vide order dated April 11, 1980, accepted the ejectment petition of the respondents and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the shop premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller which is still pending. On March 18, 1982, the petitioner moved an application in the appellate Court for amendment of the written statement wherein he desired to add the following : "Respondent was and is prepared to effect repairs and to replace any portion of the roof as per terms of the rent note and he is entitled to do the same, the landlord has no right to prevent him from doing so. This is a right given to him as per agreement between the parties. That after the vacation of injunction order the respondent effected some repairs but the petitioner being a forceful man did not allow the respondent to repair the shop in dispute fully. He cannot take benefit of his own wrong. It is all mala fide on his part. He has no right by preventing the respondent from effecting repairs, to seek an ejectment order "on the ground that shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation". The landlord has waived his right seeking ejectment on this ground as per terms of the rent note so he is estopped from seeking ejectment on this ground."
(2.) THE Appellate Authority vide order dated May 14, 1982, dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking amendment of the written statement. It is against this order that the present revision is directed. The Appellate Authority has observed that the ejectment application was filed against the petitioner on August 3, 1976, whereas the tenant sought to exercise the right to carry out repairs in March, 1982. It is not understood why he kept sleeping over his right for all this period. Even otherwise if the premises had not become unfit and unsafe for human habitation or that if these are merely in a repairable condition, he could do so in rebuttal of issues No. 2 and 3. No separate issue was necessary as to the right of the tenant to carry out repairs with reference to the landlord. The Appellate Authority further held that it cannot be inferred from the term of the rent note which is already on the file that the respondents had waived their right to seek the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The amendment, if allowed, would unnecessarily prolong the decision of the case and the litigation which has already consumed about six years. The application for amendment has been made with ulterior design to prolong the litigation.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the amendment sought is very necessary and it was due to inadvertent omission that it could not be made when the written statement was filed and also thereafter till March 18, 1982. The contention is without merit. In the first place the prayer for amendment of the written statement is extremely belated. The ejectment petition was filed on August 3, 1976. The Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the petitioner vide order dated April 11, 1980. The appeal was filed thereafter and it was during the pendency of the appeal on March 18, 1982, that the petitioner filed an application seeking amendment of the written statement. No reasonable explanation has been given for seeking the amendment of the written statement so late. The conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Authority that the petitioner had sought the amendment of the written statement to prolong the litigation appears to be correct.;