CR No. 1683 of 2008 and CR No. 1684 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No. 1683 of 2008 Date of decision March 16, 2009 Gurnam Singh ....... Petitioner Versus Wassan Singh and another ........Respondents CR No. 1684 of 2008 Gurnam Singh ....... Petitioner Versus Sanjeev Kumar and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. S. K. Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Sukhbir Singh, 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. The two revision petitions are against orders dismissing the application for amendment of petition prosecuted under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and giving up his plea under Section 13-A of the said Act which was filed as though he was a “specified landlord”. The amendment was sought on the basis of objections taken by the tenant that the petition was not maintainable under CR No. 1683 of 2008 and CR No. 1684 of 2008 Section 13-A. In one of the cases arising out of the same batch this Hon'ble Court has already held in its decision in C.R. No. 1762 of 2008 that the amendment could be allowed and that no objection could be taken by the tenant. This decision shall follow the rendering of the decision in Civil Revision No. 1762 of 2008. 2. The Civil revision petitions are therefore, allowed on condition that the landlord shall pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the tenant, which could be paid directly to the tenant. Needless to state that the tenant will have adequate opportunity to file additional written statement to the amended petition and lead evidence in support of the pleadings. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 16, 2009 archana