Martin and Harris Private Limited v. Ranvir Uppal and Other

Order VI Rule 1 Brief Facts

2.

petitioner–comp premises No.SC respondent No. No.3, and his ne petition against comprising the b

3.

they are membe respondent Nos married, and we and 2 had decid Nos.3 and 4, fo second floor for

4.

It i disclose that the titioner–tenant for setting aside sed by the learned Rent Contro by the respondents–landlords, nt under Order VI Rule 17 rea er Order VIII Rule 1 read with copy of the document in suppo 17 CPC has been dismissed. e brief facts leading to the filing pany is a tenant in respect of t CO 1, Sector 26, Madhya Mar 1, along with his brother–resp ephew–respondent No.4 (son of t the petitioner–tenant seeking basement and second floor. e ground taken by the responden ers of a business family, and wi s.1 and 2, namely respondent ere having their own families. It ded to expand their business and or which the basement was requ r office use. is the case of the petitioner–te e ground floor and first floor of t

the impugned common order da oller, U.T., Chandigarh, in the r whereby the application of ad with Section 151 CPC and h Section 151 CPC for placing ort of the amendment sought un g of the present petitions are that the basement and second floor rg, Chandigarh. In the year 20 pondent No.2, his son–respond respondent No.2), filed an evict eviction from the said premi nts in the eviction petition was t ith the passage of time, the sons Nos.3 and 4, had grown up, was pleaded that respondent No d to entrust the same to respond uired for storage purposes and enant that the respondents did the same building were also own

ated rent on nder r of 013, dent tion ises that s of got os.1 dent not

by them. As on already let out, respondents. Th yet they did no ground floor an them.

5.

the respondents immediately bef but no business the tenanted pre

6.

Sub to know of the accordingly mov was allowed, an evidence, which and by 01.09.2 Thereafter, on Rule 17 CPC f regarding the le claiming them u the Rent Contro

7.

Ag this Court. Vide n the date of filing of the evict , and a portion of the first flo he said portions were available ot disclose the same. The respo nd first floor constituted a sourc e petitioner–tenant in its written s were in possession of the g fore the filing of the eviction pet was started therein, which reflec emises was not bona fide. bsequently, during the pendency respondents having come into p ved an application for amendme nd issues were framed on 26.0 h was closed on 03.02.2016, wh 2017, nine witnesses had bee

16.04.2018, the respondents fil for amendment of the eviction p etting out of the ground floor unsuitable for their business. Th oller vide order dated 14.12.2018 grieved, the petitioner filed Civi e order dated 06.02.2019, this C

tion petition, the ground floor w oor was in the possession of to them for commencing busine ondents also did not plead that ce of substantial rental income n statement specifically pleaded t ground floor and first floor ev tition and also during its penden cted that the alleged requiremen y of the petition, the petitioner ca possession of the ground floor a ent of the written statement, wh

09.2013. The respondents led th hile the petitioner led its eviden en examined and cross-examin led an application under Order petition, seeking to add averme and first floor from time to tim he said amendment was allowed

¶8il Revision No. 596 of 2019 bef Court, while not interfering with

was ess, for that ven ncy, nt of ame hich heir nce, ned. VI ents me, d by

order of amendm the main evict evidence, includ would remain op

8.

petitioner filed additional issue landlord had co the premises and requirement.

9.

was closed on adjourned from evidence, which evidence on 21.

10.

Du for amendment said application

06.02.2025. The of 2025 before t

11.

Court vide ord hereunder for re ment, observed that the Rent Co tion petition, would take into ding any alleged admissions of th pen for the tenant–petitioner at th ereafter, the amended petition its written statement thereto, No. 3A was framed on 18.09. oncealed material facts regarding d, if so, whether the same disent e respondents led their evidenc

10.01.2020. Due to the Covid m 23.03.2020 to 26.02.2021. Th h was closed on 18.08.2022. Th

11.2024. uring this period, the petitioner of the written statement to corre n was dismissed by the learned e petitioner, aggrieved, preferre this Court. e said revision petition was allo er dated 02.07.2025, the opera eady reference:

ontroller, while finally adjudicat consideration the pleadings a he landlords, and that all argume he final stage. dated 16.04.2018 was filed, rejoinder was submitted, and 2019 as to whether the petition g letting out of various portions titled them from claiming bona f ce on the amended petition, wh d-19 pandemic, proceedings w hereafter, the petitioner also led he respondents closed their rebu filed an application on 15.01.20 ect the area mentioned therein. T d Rent Controller vide order da ed Civil Revision Petition No.12 owed by the co-ordinate Bench t ative part of which is reprodu

ting ents an ner– s of fide hich were d its uttal ated this

"7. ma pet bey may cou exte ten for xxx

¶9pet dat per Ho to l cas

¶18ma

12.

Sub by this Court, eviction petition the same build

At this, learned senior cou de a categorical statement be titioner will not lead any fresh yond the material already on rec y be permitted only to file the am unsel for the landlords-respond ent, this petition may be dispo ant-petitioner is not permitted th any new case. x

xxxx

xxx In view of the aforesaid sub tition is hereby disposed of by ted 06.02.2025 with a directio rmit the tenant-petitioner to fil wever, it is made clear that tena lead any fresh evidence nor wou se. The Court of learned Ren

07.2025 for addressing argume e parties will seek further adjo de before this Court." bsequent to the passing of the a it is the case of the petitioner n the respondents again came int ding. It is averred that on 11.0

unsel for the tenant-petitioner efore this Court that the tena h evidence nor will plead its c cord, and that the tenant-petitio mended written statement. Learn dents submits that to the afores osed of to the effect that in c to lead any fresh evidence or xx

xxxx bmissions of both the sides, pres setting aside the impugned or on to learned Rent Controller le the amended written stateme ant-petitioner will not be permit uld be permitted to make out a n nt Controller shall fix a date nts by both the parties and none ournment, as per the undertak above-said order dated 02.07.20 r that during the pendency of to possession of the ground floor

07.2025 the respondents obtain

has ant-case oner ned said case put sent rder r to ent. tted new on e of king r of

possession of t against the erstw Jaks Enterprises of rent and havin events the petit Rule 17 read w statement so as floor and the pe petitioner sough to place on rec 2025.

13.

and, before the directions conta petitioner is pr leading any fres

18.08.2025 the and declined to in the order of t any fresh eviden

08.09.2025 the seeking a direct litigation betwe the fact of their the ground floor and, thereafte while tenant of the ground floor s' (Petition No. 103 of 2025), on ng carried out structural alteratio tioner–tenant on 18.08.2025 fil with Section 151 CPC seeking to bring on record the post-orde endency of the said eviction peti ht permission under Order VIII ord certified copies of the judi e respondents did not formally learned Rent Controller, relied ained in the order dated 02.07.20 ecluded from placing on recor sh evidence or making out a new learned Rent Controller accept entertain the petitioner's applic this Court that the tenant–petitio nce nor would be permitted to m petitioner filed an application tion to the respondents to admit en the respondents and M/s Jak r present possession of the entire

er, instituted eviction proceedi titled 'Ranvir Uppal & Ors. v. M n the grounds of default in paym ons. In the light of these subsequ ed an application under Order permission to amend the writ er facts of possession of the grou ition; along with the application Rule 1 read with Section 151 C icial record in Petition No. 103 file any reply to either applicat entirely upon the observations a 025 of this Court to contend that rd the subsequent events or fr w case. By the impugned order da ted the aforementioned content ations, relying upon the express oner "will not be permitted to l make out a new case." Thereafter, n under Order XII Rule 2A C t or deny documents relating to ks Enterprises and to admit or de e ground floor; that application

ngs M/s ment uent VI tten und CPC 3 of tion rom ated tion sion ead , on CPC eny

was not enterta

11.09.2025 on th orders dated 18 Controller misin dated 02.07.202 Submissions of

14.

Lea

02.07.2025 was matter of Civil written statemen statement recor evidence which amendment was

(i) curtailing the new case in o 1234/2025, and and court record 1234/2025 and bona fides of th event which did foreclosed by th administration o facts that bear m sought to be p ained by the Rent Controller the same legal premise. The pres

8.08.2025 and 11.09.2025 on nterpreted and unduly extende 25 and thereby declined to decide f learned counsel for the partie arned counsel for the petitioner-s confined in scope to the spec Revision No. 1234 of 2025, nt for correction of the area an rded before this Court related h the petitioner would rely s concerned. It is argued that the e petitioner from leading fresh e rder to press the narrow ame

(ii) permitting the petitioner to ds which have come into existe which are directly germane to e landlords' alleged requirement d not exist as of 02.07.2025 cou hat order, to hold otherwise wo of justice and would preclude pa materially on the dispute. It is fu laced on record are public jud

and was rejected by order da sent revision petition challenges the ground that the learned R d the scope of this Court's or e the applications on their merits s -tenant submits that the order da cific relief which was the subje namely, permission to amend nd that the petitioner's categori only to the mode and ambit upon insofar as that particu ere is a material distinction betw evidence or making out an entir endment which gave rise to C place on record subsequent eve ence only after the disposal of C o the core controversy, namely t. Learned counsel contends that uld not, and was not intended to, ould be to render nugatory the d arties from relying upon subsequ urther submitted that the docume dicial records and documentary

ated Rent rder . ated ect-ical t of ular ween rely CR-ents CR-t an , be due uent ents

nature and there with the creation

15.

On the observations clear statement already on reco concession was of CR-1234/202 post-order even undertaking furn case after obtain submit that the documents or p fresh evidence a Findings of this

16.

I h dated 02.07.202 learned Rent C limit the scope o not in dispute. E judicial directio and with an eye contained in the not be permitted efore cannot be equated with th n of a new cause of action. n the other hand, learned counse s of this Court are categorical. that it would not lead fresh evid rd and had sought only to file a accepted by this Court and form

¶25It is urged that to permit the nts and additional material w nished before this Court and to p ning the very benefit which the e Rent Controller has, theref permit amendment which, in su and making out a new case. s Court have considered the rival submi 25 in its entirety as well as th Controller. The proposition that of evidence or pleadings in orde Equally however, it is a fundam on must be read and construed i e to the relief actually sought an e order dated 02.07.2025, name d to lead any fresh evidence no

he taking of fresh oral evidence el for the respondents contends t The tenant–petitioner had mad dence or plead beyond the mate an amended written statement, t med the basis of the order dispos e petitioner now to place on rec would be to frustrate the v permit the tenant to make out a n e order conferred. The responde fore, correctly declined to ad ubstance, would amount to lead ssions and have perused the or he impugned orders passed by courts may, in appropriate cas er to curb unfair ambush or delay mental principle of procedure tha in the context in which it is pas nd granted. The operative mand ly that the tenant–petitioner wo r to make out a new case, must

e or that de a erial this sing cord very new ents dmit ding rder ses, y is at a ssed date ould

understood agai CR-1234/2025, which involved evidence it inten order which, exp on record subse only after the materially upon create an emba conceivably hav decided.

17.

case, in partic contemporaneou events which, b fact been able themselves have default and alle plainly relevant tenanted premis available and s landlords. Whe displace the lan the learned Rent inst the backdrop of the specifi which related to correction of th expressed concessions by the p nded to rely upon for that narro pressly or by necessary implicat equent events or fresh judicial r disposal of that revision petit n the core issue in dispute. To argo over facts which had not y ve been the subject of considerat e documentary material sought to cular the certified copy of us proof of possession, are rec by the petitioner's case, demons to let or obtain possession o e initiated eviction proceedings eged structural alterations. Suc to the question whether the land ses is bona fide and whether suitable area for carrying on th ether those documents and the ndlords' case on the issue of bon t Controller to adjudicate after gi

ic controversy before this Court he area in the written statement a petitioner as to the limited ambit ow purpose. There is nothing in tion, precludes a party from plac records which come into existe tion and which bear directly a so construe the order would be yet occurred and which could tion at the time CR-1234/2025 w o be placed on record in the pres Petition No. 103 of 2025 a cords of judicial proceedings a strate that the respondents have of the ground floor and that th against the ground floor tenant ch facts, if shown to be true, dlords' professed requirement of r the ground floor constitutes he business contended for by e facts proved thereby suffice na fide requirement is a matter iving both parties a fair opportun

t in t of cing nce e to not was sent e in hey for are f the an e to for

to address the r opportunity to p admissibility an order which, pr that transpired a

18.

For in mechanically as to foreclose certified judicia this Court was the material wh was the subject the tenant from which are germa

19.

with Section 15 and under Order extent that the purpose of brin come into posse record certified Ranveer Uppal a

20.

It i petitioner to exp relevancy and probative value place such documents on recor nd relevance cannot be sustaine roperly construed, did not intend after the order was passed. r these reasons I find that the lea y applying the direction containe e the petitioner from placing al records which post-dated that directed at curbing the petitione hich it had placed on record for -matter of CR-1234/2025. It wa relying upon facts which came ane to the determination of the ev e applications filed by the petiti 51 CPC and under Order VIII R r XII Rule 2A CPC, therefore, d petitioner is permitted to ame nging on record the subsequent ession of the ground floor of the copies of judicial records relatin and others versus M/s Jaks Enter is, however, clarified that the sa pand the scope of controversy

of the material. The denial of d without an adjudication on th ed where the bar relied upon is d to preclude reliance upon eve arned Rent Controller fell into er ed in the order dated 02.07.2025 on record subsequent events a order. The limitation expressed er from expanding its case beyo the very narrow amendment wh as not a blanket embargo disabl e into existence only thereafter a viction petition. ioner under Order VI Rule 17 r Rule 1 read with Section 151 C deserve to be allowed to the limi end the written statement for t event of the respondents hav e demised premises and to place ng to Petition No. 103 of 2025 tit rprises. aid permission shall not entitle beyond the said subsequent eve

heir s an ents rror 5 so d by ond hich ling read CPC ited ving e on tled ent,

nor shall it entit the documents w amendment sha the documents r Conclusion

21.

Con the learned Re applications file Section 151 CP Order XII Rule

22.

Pen

October 29, 202 tripti

Whether

Whether tle the petitioner to lead any fres which are sought to be produce all be confined strictly to the nar relevant thereto. nsequently, the orders dated 18. ent Controller, U.T., Chandig ed by the petitioner–tenant un C, under Order VIII Rule 1 read 2A CPC are allowed to the exten nding application(s), if any, also

speaking/non-speaking : Speaking r reportable : Yes/No

sh oral evidence apart from prov ed along with the amendment. T rration of the subsequent facts a .08.2025 and 11.09.2025 passed garh, are hereby set aside. T nder Order VI Rule 17 read w d with Section 151 CPC, and un nt indicated above. stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE

ving d by with

IN T 1. CR-6938 Martin & Harris Shri Ranvir Upp 2. CR-6950 Martin & Harris Shri Ranvir Upp CORAM : HON Present: Mr Ms for Ms MANDEEP PA 1. Thi civil revisions. aside the impug U.T.Chandigarh the application admission and d THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.- De -2025 (O&M) s Pvt. Ltd. VERSUS pal and Others -2025 (O&M) s Pvt. Ltd. VERSUS pal and Others N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE r. H.L.Tiku, Senior Advocate ass s. Yashmeet and Mr. Manav Baja the petitioner. s. Sidhi Bansal, Advocate for the -.- ANNU J. is common judgment of mine sh One i.e CR.6938 of 2025 filed gned order dated 11.09.2025 pas h, in the rent petition filed by th of the petitioner–tenant unde denial of documents has been dis JAB AND HARYANA ARH cided on:-29.10.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents ....Petitioner ....Respondents EEP PANNU sisted by aj, Advocates e respondents. hall dispose of above-numbered t by the petitioner-tenant for sett sed by the learned Rent Control he respondents–landlords, wher er Order XII Rule 2A CPC smissed and Second i.e. CR.6950 s s two ting ller, eby for 0 of 2025, by the pet 18.08.2025 pass petition filed b petitioner–tenan application und record certified