JUDGMENT
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. Petitioner is a tenant in the proceedings, which are going on before the Rent Controller. He had given an application for amending the written statement for adding one more ground that the landlord has obtained possession of one garage and toilet and that he is going to let out again and hence there is no bona fide requirement of the premises. Amendment was dismissed and hence this revision petition.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the case of Messrs Asian Chawla Udyog and Anr. v. Mrs. Sushma Bansal, (1989-2)96 P.L.R. 538. It has been held therein that amendment of the written statement can only be refused if it is barred by some statutory provision of law or the party has acquired a right, which cannot be compensated with costs or the amendment sought is mala fide.
4. Relying on this judgment learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the amendment could not have been refused in this case. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that amendment sought for is not necessary in view of the pleadings already on record in this case. The copy of the application for amendment is Annexure P-2 and the amendment proposed to be made is as under:-
“That from the conduct of the petitioners themselves, it is apparent that the petitioners do not require the premises for personal use and occupation. One portion on the ground floor comprising of kitchen, one bath room, one garage which was on rent with one Bablu who was a government employee. This portion was vacated by the said tenant in the month of April, 1999 and now the petitioner have put up a to-let notice on the house to rent out the portion vacated by the earlier tenant. In case the petitioner was in need of the premises in question there was no reason for them to rent out the portion which is already in possession. This conduct of the petitioners themselves establishes that the necessity of the petitioners is not bona fide and they are only using this tool to get this premises vacated so as to sell out at a premium.”
5. By the application, the petitioner has also sought to add the following paragraph:
“The subsequent conduct of the petitioners after filing of the present rent petition also establishes that the premises in possession of the tenant is not required by the petitioner for their personal use and occupation. The garage portion which fell vacant during the pendency of the rent petition is being sought to be rented out by the petitioners and many people have visited the house of the respondent to find out as to what is the rent and also to see the premises, which is sought to be rented out by the petitioners.”
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has read over to me the pleadings before the Rent Controller. In paragraph 9 of the rent petition for eviction, the petitioner has stated as under: –
“That petitioner No. 2 retired as Social Study Mistress in the year 1995 and she is also having very good status in her life like her husband, thus no accommodation which is presently available with the petitioners at the first floor which is comprising of (i) Drawing room, (ii) Dinning Room, (iii) two bed rooms and (iv) small room for ‘Pooja’ alongwith garage on the ground floor does not meet need and requirement of the petitioners”.
7. In reply to this, it has been stated by the petitioner in his written statement before the Rent Controller as under:-
“In addition to house No. 240, Sector 15-A, the petitioners are also in possession of entire First Floor of House No. 1259, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh i.e., the house in question and a car garage and a servant quarter alongwith a toilet on the ground floor, as such the petitioner do not require the premises which is in the possession of the respondents.”
8. Therefore, both in the pleadings and the written statement in the rent petition, it has been stated that along with other portion on the ground floor, the same is in the possession of the respondent-petitioner and in the written statement, the present petitioner has mentioned that the car garage and the servant quarter with toilet on the ground floor are in the possession of the present respondent.
9. Therefore, the plea which the petitioner wants to take in his written statement has already been taken.
10. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents are going to let out the portion and, therefore, there is no bona fide requirement of the respondents. Whether the portion is let out or not, the fact is that the portion is with the respondents and the pleadings of the parties are complete to the extent and, therefore, the Court can consider the fact that in the original written statement it has been mentioned that the garage and the toilet are in possession of the respondents. When the respondent has not yet let out the premises and, therefore, raising the argument regarding the intention of the respondents to let out the premises is premature.
11. The petitioner does not get the advantage of the case Messrs Asian Chawla Udyog and another (Supra). This petition is, therefore, without merit and is dismissed.