Court dismisses tenant's revision petition against amendment allowing landlord to claim house tax arrears
In a significant ruling on rent proceedings, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by a tenant challenging the amendment of pleadings in a rent case. The judgment, delivered by Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal, affirms the order of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, allowing the landlady's application to amend pleadings to include house tax liability for subsequent periods.
The petitioner, Prabha Singh, has been a tenant in the property since 1994, operating a gas agency. The dispute arose after the respondent, Kiran Mahindra, filed an application seeking an amendment to the pleadings in the ongoing rent petition, RP/619/2019. The amendment was aimed at addressing the tenant's liability for house tax from 2010 to 2024.
The tenant argued that the amendment violated the principle of res judicata, as a previous rent petition (RP No. 471 of 2016) had already resolved the issue of house tax, ruling that the rent was inclusive of such taxes. However, Justice Grewal dismissed these concerns, clarifying that the previous decision dealt with house tax for a specific period and did not preclude the landlady from seeking house tax for subsequent periods.
The court emphasized that rent proceedings inherently involve continuing obligations and recurring liabilities, thereby necessitating independent adjudication for different periods. The judgment elucidated that res judicata does not automatically bar amendments concerning later periods, as such issues require fresh determination based on the circumstances.
Moreover, the court advocated for a liberal approach to amendments in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure effective dispute resolution. It was determined that the amendment neither altered the nature of the petition nor caused irremediable prejudice to the tenant. The tenant would have the opportunity to file an additional written statement to address the amended pleadings.
The judgment also addressed concerns regarding the simultaneous filing of two rent petitions for the same premises. The court clarified that the maintainability or merits of the second petition were not challenged in the current proceedings, which focused solely on the correctness of the amendment order.
Ultimately, the High Court found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the Rent Controller's decision to allow the amendment. Consequently, the civil revision petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
This judgment reaffirms the judicial stance that amendments in rent proceedings should be permitted to facilitate comprehensive adjudication, especially in cases involving recurring liabilities such as house tax.
Bottom Line:
Amendment of pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC in rent proceedings is permissible to address recurring liabilities such as house tax for subsequent periods, and such amendments do not necessarily violate the principle of res judicata.
Statutory provision(s): Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Prabha Singh v. Kiran Mahindra, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2824472
