Amendment Made In Pleadings Claiming House Tax Arrears For Subsequent Period Not Barred By Res Judicata: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a civil revision petition filed by a tenant challenging an order of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, which allowed the landlady to amend her pleadings to claim house tax arrears for a subsequent period, holding that such an amendment does not violate the principle of res judicata and is permissible in rent proceedings involving continuing obligations.Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal said, "it cannot be overlooked that amendments are to be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure effective adjudication of disputes. The amendment sought by the respondent does not change the nature of the petition, nor does it cause any prejudice to the tenant that cannot be compensated by granting opportunity to file an additional written."The Court said, the contention that two rent petitions have been filed for the same premises also does not advance the petitioner's case. The maintainability or merits of the second petition are not under challenge in the present proceedings. The only question is the correctness of the order allowing amendment, and on that limited issue, no jurisdictional error or perversity is found.The revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailed an order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, allowing an application filed by the respondent-landlady under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in Rent Petition.The petitioner has been a tenant in the demised premises since 1994, running a gas agency from the property. The respondent's mother was the original landlady.Earlier, the respondent had filed Rent Petition wherein Issue, relating to arrears of rent and liability to pay house tax, was decided in favour of the tenant, holding that the rent paid was inclusive of taxes. That petition was otherwise dismissed on other grounds, and an appeal arising therefrom is stated to be pending.Subsequently, in 2019, the respondent instituted a fresh eviction petition in respect of the same premises. During its pendency, the landlady sought amendment of the pleadings to assert that the tenant was liable to pay house tax from 2010 up to 31.12.2024. The Rent Controller allowed the amendment, leading to the present revision.Counsel for the tenant Advocate Sunpreet Singh contended that the amendment amounted to reopening findings recorded in, which held that rent was inclusive of house tax.The amendment was barred by the principle of res judicata;It introduced a new cause of action; and two rent petitions concerning the same premises could not simultaneously seek adjudication of identical issues.The High Court rejected the tenant's challenge, holding that the plea of res judicata was misconceived. It observed that the earlier finding in the 2016 rent petition pertained only to the liability for a specific period and was based on the evidence led in that case.The Court underscored that liability to pay house tax in rent matters is a recurring and continuing obligation, and therefore, whether the tenant remained liable for subsequent periods necessarily required independent adjudication. As such, res judicata could not mechanically bar an amendment relating to later periods.The Court further emphasised that amendments should generally be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to enable effective adjudication of disputes.It noted that the amendment did not change the nature of the eviction petition;Any potential prejudice to the tenant could be addressed by granting an opportunity to file an additional written statement and the issue of maintainability or merits of the second rent petition was not under challenge in the present revision.Finding no jurisdictional error or perversity in the Rent Controller's order, the Court declined to interfere under Article 227.Holding that the amendment sought was legally permissible and not barred by res judicata, the High Court dismissed the civil revision petition. Mr. Sunpreet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.Title: Prabha Singh v. Kiran MahindraClick here to read order

Amendment Made In Pleadings Claiming House Tax Arrears For Subsequent Period Not Barred By Res Judicata: Punjab & Haryana High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags