Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THE prayer of the petitioner for amendment of his rent petition is declined. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.
(2.) THE petitioner -landlord has purchased a property bearing No. 2272/1, Bagh Rama Nand, Amritsar, from Kharaiti Ram vide sale deed dated 24.1.1994. Respondent was a tenant under said Kharaiti Ram on the part of ground floor of the property. On 30.11.1996, the petitioner -landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant, claiming that he has taken on rent two rooms, kitchen and bathroom from Kharaiti Ram. The petitioner has sought ejectment on the ground that the premises are needed for use and occupation by him and his family members. Other grounds are also raised. This ejectment application is pending since the year 1996. The petitioner has now moved an application, seeking amendment, saying that the same is needed to avoid any complication and multiplicity of the proceedings. By this amendment, the petitioner wants to add words "alongwith two Mainis" in Para 1 of the ejectment application where the tenanted premises is described. It is specifically pleaded that the petitioner is not to lead any further evidence in this case. This application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by v the trial Court stating that the amendment would cause prejudice to the respondent. Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, would say that the Rent Controller has dismissed the prayer of the petitioner mainly by keeping in view the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as amended, which would not apply to the present case. The counsel refers to Section 16(2)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (for short, "the Act"), to urge that the amended provisions would not apply to the proceedings in respect of suits, which are filed prior to the date of amendment. In support of this submission, he has referred to Section 16(2)(b) of amending act and has placed reliance on the case of Vijay Kumar v. State Bank of India . This Court has observed that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, as amended or as the case may be, inserted or substituted by Section 16 of the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999 and by Section 7 of the Act shall not apply in respect of any pleadings filed before commencement of Section 16 of the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999 and Section 7 of the Act. It is accordingly held that effective date for enforcement of the provisions is 1.7.2002. The counsel accordingly contends that the impugned order can not be sustained as the same is made by keeping in view the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as amended.
(3.) TO justify his act in seeking this amendment, the counsel would refer to the reply filed by the respondent to the application for ejectment wherein the stand taken by the respondent is that he took two rooms at the backside, kitchen, verandah, one front room, latrine, bathroom, deori, terrace, one miani on the room of the backside, one miani on the kitchen on 31.3.1982 by a rent note dated 31.3.1982. It is on this premise, he says that the petitioner would not be able to get any effective relief even if the ejectment of the respondent is ordered. Though the earlier stance of the petitioner is that the respondent had forcibly occupied two mianis and the respondent had claimed that this portion was also given on rent to him by the previous owner. The petitioner says that in order to cut short the controversy, he has prayed for amendment of the description of the premise so that ejectment, if ordered, could relate to all the property in occupation of the respondent.;