IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7759 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.12.2011 Narinder Kaur -----Petitioner Vs. Daljit Singh -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 16.11.2011 of the Rent Controller, Amritsar, whereby his application for amendment of the written statement has been declined. 2. According to the prayer made in the application for amendment of the written statement, the petitioner due to inadvertence could not plead the factum regarding previous tenancy and execution of rent note dated 15.10.1990 and thus, the amendment was sought. However, while rejecting the prayer, the Rent Controller found that the fact of previous tenancy and execution of rent note was very much to the knowledge of the petitioner and the same could have been pleaded at the first instance. Moreover, the trial has already commenced and the case is fixed at the stage of evidence. Not only this, the petitioner had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant and the petitioner has taken a specific stand that the shop in dispute was taken at a C.R. No.7752 of 2011 monthly rent of `250/- vide rent note dated 6.5.1998 and therefore, in the circumstances, the prayer made in the amendment application for incorporation of the factum of earlier tenancy was not relevant at all. 3. Counsel for the petitioner before this Court could not dispute the observations of the Rent Controller, as made in the impugned order. 4. Thus, no interference is warranted. 5. Dismissed. December 15, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 2