Civil Revision No. 835 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 835 of 2011 Date of Decision : 12.07.2011 Madan Mohan ....Petitioner Versus Dr. Rohit Grover & Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents. 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 13th January, 2011 whereby an application filed on behalf of the petitioner for amendment in written statement has been declined. As per the averments the respondents who have purchased the demised premises on 01.03.2006 filed an ejectment petition on 3rd October, 2007 against the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity submitting that the premises in dispute are needed for setting-up a Eye/ENT Hospital/ clinic. The petition was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement relevant portion of Para No. 2 of written statement reads as follows:- “That had there been any such necessity as projected in the present petition then the petitioners were free to purchase unoccupied property rather than purchasing a fully occupied property fully knowing the facts that the same is being used by the Civil Revision No. 835 of 2011 2 Respondent and other tenants in order to earn their livelihood. The attempt on the part of the petitioners is to take away the livelihood of the Respondents. Apart from that it is respectfully submitted that the petitioners are already owing SCO No. 145-146, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh which has been falling vacant from time to time but has been re let out again and again by the petitioners just to make undue enrichment under the garb of ground of personal necessities. The said show room is on rent to VLCC on the ground and first floor of the premises. The second floor of the said show room have been let out to Reliance for their office use. Similarly, half portion of the basement has been given on rent to the Reliance and the other half portion have been given to Global Opportunities/Study/ The Respondent has further learnt that the petitioner own several other properties in and around Chandigarh regarding which there is non disclosure on the part of the petitioners. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground as well. It is a matter of record that the issues in this petition were framed on 26th April, 2008 by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh. Thereafter, the respondent-landlord led evidence in respect of the case. Not only this even the petitioner had been given many opportunities to lead his evidence and failed to close his evidence despite last opportunity, the present application for amendment has been filed thereafter. In the application it has been averred that he wants to add the following in his written statement:- “That the Respondents have come to the knowledge that he ground floor of SCO No. 145-146, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh is lying completely vacant which can very well be used to run the eye hospital. The basement of the said property has been rented out after filing of this petition. At present, a tenant by the name of Pooja Immigration Consultants is occupying the said portion. On the first floor of the said building, Birla Sunlife is the tenant who was rented out the said portion only one year back i.e. two years after filling the Civil Revision No. 835 of 2011 3 present rent petition. On the top floor of the said showroom the tenant by the name of Anil Kumar who is doing business reliance was inducted three years back. It is relevant to mention here that all these tenancies have been created during the pendency of present rent petition. All these facts only point towards one thing that the present petition has been filed with the intention to get rid of the Respondent-tenant who is an old tenant and to further let out the premises in question on a higher rate of rent.” It has been further submitted that in fact the aforesaid amendments sought is in the nature of clarification and some of the information which is necessary has now come to the knowledge of the petitioner. The application has been rejected by the Rent Controller by observing as under:- After hearing the rival submissions and going through the contents of the application and reply thereof. I do not find any merits in the present application because the applicant/Respondent has already taken this defence in the written statement that petitioners are owning SCO No. 145-146 which have been falling vacant from time to time. But has been re-let out again and again by the petitioners just to make undue enrichment under the ground of personal necessity. It has been further pleaded by the Respondent that petitioners own several other properties in and around Chandigarh. So, the proposed amendment is not at all necessary. These facts can be brought on record by way of evidence as these are elaboration of the defence already taken by the respondent. It will not amount to evidence beyond pleadings. So, this Court is of the opinion that the proposed amendment is not necessary. So, the application is hereby dismissed. Now to come up on 03.02.2011 for payment of cost and RWs. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be given to the respondent for his evidence.” Civil Revision No. 835 of 2011 4 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the parties which are part of this revision petition and the impugned order. The petitioner has already taken a specific defence in the written statement that respondents were owning SCO No. 145-46 which has been falling vacant from time to time but has been let out again and again by them. In view of the aforesaid plea taken the amendment sought by the petitioner now is not actually necessary. The plea is already therefore and the petitioners are at liberty to take these points by placing on record evidence in accordance with law. The other contention of the petitioner is that it has come to their knowledge that some information which is necessary has come to their knowledge at the time of filing of the application is even without any merit as no details regarding date and time etc. has been given by the petitioner while moving this application. The amendment application has been filed just to delay the proceedings. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 12.7.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) savita Judge