IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 2054 of 2007. Date of Decision: 28th January, 2008... Jaswir Singh Jawanda & Anr. ..Petitioners through Mr. R.K.Jindal, Advocate Versus Suraj Parkash ...Respondent through Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3rd February, 2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners, has been dismissed. The petitioners are husband and wife and being owners of SCF No. 3, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh, have rented out the Barsati portion thereof to the respondent-tenant. The petitioners have filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the respondent on the ground of bona- fide personal necessity. This eviction petition was filed in November, 2003 with the following averments made in para no. 9 thereof:- Civil Revision No.2054 of 2007. ::-2-: “9. That the petitioners do not own or possess any other residential building within the local area of Chandigarh, Panchkula or Mohali, or for that matter anywhere in India”. Petitioner No. 1 thereafter tendered his affidavit dated 2nd September, 2004 as examination-in-chief. In para no. 8 of the said affidavit, petitioner No. 1 deposed as follows:- “8. That the deponent do not own or possess any other residential building within the local area of Chandigarh, Panchkula or Mohali, or for that matter anywhere in India and he has not vacated any such building without sufficient cause”. In his cross-examination also which took place on 15th September, 2005 petitioner No. 1 re-iterated that “I have no property in my name or in the name of my wife any where in India”. No suggestion was given to petitioner No.1 that he has got vacated any other building for the same purpose. It appears that when the eviction petition was ripe for final hearing, the petitioners sought amendment of the eviction petition in order to incorporate the plea that they have not got vacated any premises in the local area of Chandigarh, Panchkula or Mohali. The Rent Controller, however, has dismissed the said application on the ground that the same has been moved at a belated stage and in order to “fill the lacuna”. Civil Revision No.2054 of 2007. ::-3-: It is true that the amendment has been sought by the petitioners at a belated stage, even when the facts, sought to be pleaded by them, were in their knowledge. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the delay does not appear to have caused any prejudice to the respondent-tenant who is in possession of the demised premises. The amendment sought by the petitioner is more of legal in nature and the supporting facts are already on record. The respondent-tenant is, thus, not taken by surprise. In these circumstances, if the proposed amendment is allowed to be incorporated, it would enable the Rent Controller to decide the controversy more effectively. Consequently, and for the reasons aforementioned, this petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 3rd February, 2007 is set aside and the petitioners are permitted to place on record the amended petition, subject, however, to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs to the respondent. Disposed of. January 28, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE