Punjab and Haryana High Court – Revision Petition by Tenants Dismissed Against Rejection of Amendment in Written Statement

Case Name: Chander Parkash and others v. Gagandeep

Citation: Civil Revision No. 5988 of 2019

Date of Judgment: 6 January 2020

Bench: Justice Lisa Gill

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the tenants’ revision petition challenging the Rent Controller’s refusal to permit amendment of their written statement. The Court held that once a categorical stand denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and disputing the landlady’s derivative title was taken, the tenants could not be allowed to take a contradictory plea that, if the title were upheld, they would attorn to her. Such a dichotomous stand was impermissible, and no infirmity was found in the Rent Controller’s order rejecting the amendment.

Summary: The respondent–landlady filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the petitioners–tenants. In their written statement, the tenants denied the existence of landlord-tenant relationship and termed the sale deed of 18.12.2017 in favour of the landlady as a sham transaction, claiming it was a proxy litigation at the instance of her husband and Veer Chand Bhatia. They later filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the written statement to add that, in case the landlady’s derivative title was upheld, they would attorn to her as tenants.

The Rent Controller dismissed the application, observing that the tenants could not change their stand once a categorical denial had been made. On revision, the tenants argued that the amendment was bona fide and intended to facilitate assessment of provisional rent. Reliance was placed on J.J. Private Limited v. M.R. Murali, (2002) 3 SCC 98.

The Court rejected the argument, holding that J.J. Private Limited was not applicable as the facts there were entirely different. In the present case, denial of the landlady’s title was not bona fide, and permitting the amendment would amount to permitting contradictory and self-serving stands. The Court further clarified that the tenants’ application regarding assessment of provisional rent would be decided separately on its own merits.

Decision: Finding no illegality or perversity in the Rent Controller’s order dated 31.07.2019, the High Court dismissed the revision petition with no order as to costs, while clarifying that the observations would not affect the merits of the main ejectment petition.