- (1.) This revision raises a simple question of law pertaining to the amendment of the written statement. Inderjit Aggarwal filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, against Shri Gian Chand Goyal, who was his tenant and one Ram Nath who was also made a party. The plea of Ram Nath was that he was holding the possession on behalf of Shri Gian Chand Goyal, who is considered to be landlord. On that plea the application was being contested and subsequently Ram Nath wanted amendment of his written statement of the effect that both Inderjit Aggarwal, landlord, and Shri Gian Chand Goyal, tenant, are in collusion and wanted that plea to be decided by the Court. It appears that the learned Rent Controller disallowed the amendment and being dissatisfied with the order, Ram Nath has come in revision to this Court.
(2.) On the previous date when the revision petition was listed for motion hearing, Inderjit Aggarwal appeared and made a statement that he had no objection if the proposed amendment is allowed as he was interested in the early disposal of the petition. It was considered expedient by this Court that in the interest of the parties the hearing should be expedited and hence the statement of Inderjit Aggarwal was accepted and the revision was allowed. Consequently, Ram Nath was permitted to seek amendment so that the trial may proceed before the Rent Controller. However, Shri Gian Chand Goyal filed an application for review as obviously arguments were not heard on merits on that date. Accordingly, I recalled my previous order of May 3, 1978 and gave opportunity to all the three parties to address arguments on the application which they have done. I have considered the entire arguments on merits. It is evident that Inderjit Aggarwal has no objection to the amendment. The only objection, which Shri Gian Chand Goyal, Advocate, who appears for himself, has taken, is to the effect that the plea regarding collusive nature of the petition was not taken by Ram Nath in the first instance. That will only mean that according to Shri Gian Chand Goyal, that plea cannot be taken at this stage. But one has to be liberal in granting amendment of the written statement if the plea is not inconsistent. In my opinion, the amendment could be taken at any stage provided prejudice is not caused to the opposite party. In the instant case no prejudice can be caused. It is evident that the two pleas, one which Ram Nath has already taken, namely that he was holding the possession on behalf of Shri Gian Chand Goyal and that Inderjit Aggarwal has no right to evict him and the second which he now wishes to take in addition namely that both Inderjit Aggarwal and Gian Chand Goyal are in collusion, cannot be considered inconsistent with each other, and as such the present plea by way of amendment can be taken and there is no legal bar for the same.
(3.) With these observations and especially noting the attitude of Inderjit Aggarwal, the main contestant who has no objection to the plea being taken, the present revision petition is allowed and the order of the Rent Controller refusing the amendment is set aside. He shall permit the amendment of the written statement filed by Ram Nath and thereafter he shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. No order as to costs.;