Civil Revision No.6791 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6791 of 2009 Date of decision : 05-07-2010 Amrit Lal .... Petitioner VERSUS Harish Kumar and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Preeti Khanna, Advocate, for respondent no.1. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) Landlord Harish Kumar instituted an ejectment petition. One of the grounds pressed was personal necessity. It was stated that shop in dispute was required by the applicant for starting business for his son. A specific issue No.2 was formulated as under:- ii) “Whether the shop in dispute is bonafide required by the applicant for starting business by his son? OPA” Later tenant sought an amendment in the written statement and pleaded as under:- “Rohit Kumar has gone abroad and left India. The alleged bonafide need diminishes.” The amendment was allowed by this Court and in pursuance thereof Appellate Court granted one opportunity to each of the party to lead their evidence. Grievance of the tenant is that additional issue should have Civil Revision No.6791 of 2009 -2- been formulated as landlord is guilty of concealment and is not entitled to additional accommodation. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the core issue which is germane for decision of the case is whether the landlord required the premises for starting business for his son or not? That issue has already been framed. There is no need to frame issues which are ancillary and are covered under issue no.2 drawn by the trial Court. Hence, no interference is warranted. The present revision petition is dismissed. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 05-07-2010 JUDGE manju