Civil Revision No. 629 of 2009 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 629 of 2009
Date of decision: 26.05.2009.
Jagdish Kumari
...Petitioner
Versus
Satpal and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: Mr. Pardeep Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. K.S.Rekhi, Advocate for the respondents
*****
S.D.ANAND, J.
It is beyond the pale of controversy that the petitioner
herein had initially applied for ejectment of the respondents on a plea
of personal necessity and also a plea that respondent no.1 had
unauthorisedly sublet the premises let out to him in favour of
respondent no.2. The petitioner was non-suited on both the counts.
The finding recorded at the trial was that the respondent
no.2 was a direct tenant under the petitioner herein. The plea of
subletting was, accordingly, negatived.
It is in appeal only that the petitioner filed a plea for
amendment of ejectment petition to obtain the leave of the Court to
Civil Revision No. 629 of 2009 -2-
****
aver therein the precise date upon which the respondent no.2 had
executed a rent note in favour of the respondent no.1. The plea,
raised in support of the application, was that the precision about the
date, which could not come about during the trial for want of relevant
information, would enable the petitioner to obtain the invalidation of
the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court.
It is apparent from the quoted pleadings of the parties that
the petitioner had raised a precise plea at the trial that respondent
no.1, who was tenant under him, had sublet the premises to the other
respondent without any authorisation from him and further that the
last indicated ( i.e. petitioner herein) is entitled to get the premises
under tenancy vacated for his personal use. No date of the rent note
was mentioned in the pleadings at the trial. It is only in appeal (after
having been non-suited at the trial), that the petitioner opted to file
the amendment plea aforementioned.
There can be no escape from the conclusion that the
petitioner wants to wriggle out of the finding recorded by the learned
Trial Court on point of subletting. The absence of mention of rent
note about subletting, obviously, weighed with the learned Trial Court
in obtaining the view aforementioned. The allowance of the plea
would not only enable the petitioner to wriggle out of predicament of
facing a situation where he was non-suited for want of evidence in
the context of plea of subletting, it shall also enable him to fill up the
lacunae in the case and get the matter re-adjudicated. All this
cannot be countenanced by law. I do not find anything illegal in the
Civil Revision No. 629 of 2009 -3-
****
manner of appreciation of facts by the learned Trial Court.
In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to
be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed.
May 26, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge