IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7079 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.03.2009 Subhash Chander ...Petitioner versus Naveen Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Naveen Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. --- 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. Counsel for the petitioner is present and is ready and the counsel for the respondent seeks for an adjournment. The plea of adjournment is rejected. 2. The application for amendment of the written statement filed during the course of the trial was rejected by the Rent Controller on the ground that the tenant had been taking several adjournments for examination of the witnesses and the application filed during the course of trial was unjustified. The nature of amendment that was sought was to bring upon the pleadings a subsequent event of alleged opening of a showroom in a large mall where the garments in kids wear had been started by the landlord. The whole body of case law of subsequent events as relevant has been brought about in the rent Civil Revision No.7079 of 2008 control jurisdiction and when the petition is for the bona fide requirement of the landlord for the very purpose of establishing a shop for kids wear, the subsequent acquisition of property for the very same purpose is definitely relevant. This is not to state that the contention made by the tenant is true. It will be always open to the landlord to join issues on the contentions raised by the tenant and refute the allegations in the notice or otherwise. 3. The rejection of plea for amendment of the written statement under the circumstances cannot be sustained. In the course of proceeding, the petition had been unduly delayed and it was being done at the stage of cross examination of the witness. The appropriate reparation to the petitioner who feels delayed by the actions of the tenant would be by visiting the party who comes with a delayed application with direction to pay costs. The revision petition is under the circumstances allowed, setting aside the order of the Rent Controller, subject to the condition that the tenant shall pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the landlord. On the written statement being amended as sought for by the petitioner, the landlord will have the right to file reply to the same and give appropriate evidence touching upon the amended pleadings. 4. Subject to the above observations, Civil Revision is disposed of. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.03.2009 sanjeev