' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26-10-2010, passed by the learned Special Judge Rent, Chakwal whereby an application moved by him seeking permission to amend the petition for leave to contest was dismissed and the order dated 7-12-2010, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Chakwal, whereby an appeal filed by him against the above order was also dismissed.
2. The facts in brief as emerge on the perusal of record are that the respondent No,1 filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from the rented premises on the basis of default in payment of rent, damage caused to the property, bona fide requirement of the rented premises by the petitioner for use and occupation of his son and non-vacation of the shop in spite of notice requiring vacation within one month under the oral agreement of tenancy.
3. The petitioner submitted the written reply whereby the contentions raised by the respondent were controverted. The petitioner moved an application praying therein that he be allowed to amend the application for leave to contest on the grounds that inadvertently due to typographical mistake instead of prayer that the petitioner be allowed to contest the petition it was written that "plan annexed with the ejectment petition is not based on facts and correct plan was attached with the reply." It is stated that the above contents of the prayer clause were result of typographical mistake and as such he be allowed to amend the same and be allowed to make following prayer.
"In the above circumstances the petitioner be allowed to contest the ejectment petition and same be dismissed."
4. This application was contested by the respondent. The learned Special Judge Rent, dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner had appeared in the Court on 5-6-2010 and submitted the reply of application on 17-6-2010 whereas he was required to file application for leave to defend within ten days and application for amendment was moved after elapse of one month of the appearance and there was no provision in the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, where under the amendment could be allowed. The learned Addl. District Judge while dismissing the appeal held that no appeal is maintainable against the interlocutory order and in fact the appellant had not filed the petition for leave to contest rather had straight away filed the written reply.
5. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has minutely been perused.
6. The section 28(2) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 clearly provides that no appeal shall lie against the interlocutory order passed by the Rent Tribunal. This being so the learned Addl.
District Judge had rightly held that the appeal against the order dated 26-10-2010 was not maintainable as the said order was interlocutory for all intents and purposes. However, view taken by the learned Special Judge (Rent) that 'the amendment in the application was not permissible under the Rented Premises Ordinance so the same could not be allowed was misconceived as there is no specific bar on seeking or allowing the amendment in suitable cases in the Act ibid, but there is another important and significant aspect of the matter. On first appearance of the petitioner on 5-6-2010, the learned Special Judge (Rent) allowed him to submit written reply and vakalatnama and fixed the petition for 9-6-2010. Again on 9-6-2010 the Court adjourned it to 14-6- 2010 for submission of the written reply and power of attorney. On 14-6-2010, it was held that the members of the bar were on strike so the Court adjourned the petition to 17-6-2010 for filing of written reply, which was submitted on the said date. By requiring the petitioner to file written reply and adjourning the matter to 9-6-2010, 14-6-2010 and 17-6-2010 twice due to strike of the learned members of the bar and once on the request of petitioner the Court had impliedly extended the time. One cannot be penalized for the act of the Court. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that due to non submission of the application for leave to contest the respondent is liable of ejectment under section 22(6) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 is without force in the given circumstances. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel respondent i,e, 2010 YLR 3189 is not applicable on the facts of the present petition for the same reason. Now the question arises if the amendment sought could have been granted. The written reply submitted by the petitioner reveals that he had controverted all contentions raised by the respondent and submitted in the prayer clause as under:- "it is prayed that the plan annexed with the petition is not based on factual position and the correct site plan is annexed with the reply."
This prayer by itself shows that it is not with reference to the context and the petitioner had rightly contended that this was result of typographical mistake. It is the basic principle of natural justice that one should be allowed to put forth one's correct contention before the Court to enable the Court to decide the matter effectively. The clerical or typographical mistake should not hamper the course of justice. No limitation is prescribed for filing of petition for amendment in the application or reply to the application and there is no bar in the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. To the effect that an amendment which is necessary, cannot be allowed. The learned Special Judge (Rent) erred in dismissing the petition and has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. Though the appeal was not maintainable in view of section 28(2) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 but such illegalities which may cause gross miscarriage of justice can be rectified through exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is allowed to amend the application submitted by him to the extent of prayer clause subject to payment of Rs,5000 as costs. The learned trial Court after obtaining the amended application will decide the matter within shortest possible time.