- (1.) Lahori Ram applied under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for the eviction of his tenant Hans Raj and Ram Parkash on the ground of subletting. The application was contested by Ram Parkash in the course of the proceedings, the application of Ram Parkash for amendment of the written statement was disallowed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana. Feeling aggrieved, he has preferred this revision petition under section 15(5) of the aforesaid Act. The salient facts of the case at this stage are that Lahori Ram landlord has been carrying on business on the ground floor of the premises in dispute. The upper storey thereof is in the occupation of Ram Parkash. Hans Raj is the nephew of Lahori Ram. In the eviction application, Lahori Ram alleged that the upper storey was taken on rent from 23rd May, 1962, by Hans Raj and in this respect Rent Note Exhibit A. 1 was executed by him. Later, he sublet the portion aforesaid to Ram Parkash. The allegation of subletting was controverted by Ram Parkash. Other pleas were also taken by him in his written statement. One of the issues relevant for the decision of the present petition framed was - "Whether the applicant (Lahori Ram) is estopped from raising the objection of subletting." Now the amendment sought to be made is as under : "That the petitioner (Lahori Ram) used to recover the rent from the answering respondent (Ram Parkash) some time and used to take a blank pad paper of the answering respondent and then used to hand over the receipt signed by Hans Raj. The petitioner is, thus, estopped by his act and conduct from filing the petition and also from taking up the plea of sublet. More so as he had also represented that Hans Raj is the owner of these premises." Having regard to the issue mentioned above, it cannot be said that by the amendment, Ram Parkash wants to set up a new case. In my view, the amendment amounts merely to an additional approach to the plea of estoppel taken already.
(2.) Learned counsel for Lahori Ram vehemently urged that application for eviction was filed in August, 1972 whereas the application for amendment was made on 1st September, 1973. On the other hand, it was pointed out that just a month before that, Lahori Ram had concluded his evidence. In any case, the delay in moving for amendment by itself can be no ground for disallowing it because in the interest of justice, the same can be allowed even at the appellate or revisional stage.
(3.) It was next urged by the learned counsel for Lahori Ram that the facts constituting the amendment were to the knowledge of Ram Parkash at the time of the filing of the written statement and he should have averred the same therein. The learned counsel on the opposite cited Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, 1969 AIR(SC) 1267, in which the plaintiff who was the Manager of a joint family, and was carrying on its business under a business name, and when objection was taken by the defendant that the firm being an unregistered firm was incompetent to sue, applied for the amendment of the plaint stating that he himself had intended to file and had in fact filed the action on behalf of the family in the business name. The trial Court allowed the amendment of the plaint and decreed the suit. In appeal, the High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court allowing the amendment, but their lordships of the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court restoring the order of the trial Court. It is thus clear that in Jai Ram Manohar Lal's case the true facts were to the knowledge of the plaintiff when he filed the suit but he was not debarred from seeking the amendment. Their lordships of the Supreme Court held that the rules of procedure are intended to be hand maid the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just, relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. Accordingly, I overrule the objection.;