CR No. 887 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 887 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.02.2011 Jaswinder Singh . . .Petitioner Versus Dr.(Mrs.) Jagdeep Kaur Khosla alias Jagdeep Grewal Khosla . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J This is tenant’s revision against order of the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana dated 26.11.2010 by which his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to amend the application under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking leave to defend has been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he wanted to bring on record that the demised premises is not required by the landlady for bona fide necessity as after filing of the eviction petition her husband sold Booth No.54 vide sale deed dated 8.1.2002 and she along with her husband sold the residential house No.581, Model Gram Ludhiana by way of three sale deeds. It was also alleged that she had another commercial plot at National Road, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana and her husband entered into an agreement to sell the commercial plot at Dr.Hira Singh Road, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana. It is submitted that the learned Rent Controller has committed an error in dismissing the application on the ground that these pleadings are not relevant in a case set up by the landlady under Section 13-B of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner has every right to seek amendment in the CR No. 887 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - application for leave to defend in view of the amended ejectment petition filed by the landlady. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his assistance. In the ejectment petition, the landlady has only sought clarificatory amendment about the kind of business she wanted to pursue in the demised premises after eviction of the tenant. Hence, the pleadings, which are sought to be incorporated in the application under Section 18-A of the Act, are of no relevance as rightly held by the learned Rent Controller especially when the application was filed, at the stage, when the case was fixed for arguments on the application for leave to defend. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) FEBRUARY 08, 2011 JUDGE Vivek