Civil Revision No. 6678 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6678 of 2011 Date of Decision: 02.11.2011 *** Manju Gulati .. Petitioner VS. Baljinder Singh Dhillon .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Sharan Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner-tenant is aggrieved with order dated 13.9.2011 by dint of which her application for amendment of the written statement, has been declined. Heard. It emerges out from the paper book that an eviction petition on the ground of personal necessity is pending against the petitioner since 2008. When the case was at the stage of her evidence, she filed the impugned application for amendment of the written statement to incorporate the plea that after filing of the eviction petition, the land-lord has let out the basement and first floor of SCO No.44-45, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh to Punjab National Bank vide lease deed dated 2.12.2009 and as such, there is concealment of facts by the landlord. Admittedly, the factum of tenancy of Punjab National Bank came into the cross-examination of the landlord on 29.8.2009, but the petitioner-tenant sit over the matter and filed the impugned application on 7.3.2011 after too after availing four opportunities for her evidence. Even otherwise, it is apparent that the landlord did not dispute the aforesaid fact, but according to him Punjab National Bank is under his tenancy since 1993, which has only been renewed by dint of lease deed dated 2.12.2009. Once the pleading sought to be incorporated in the written statement, has not been disputed by other side, in the considered Civil Revision No. 6678 of 2011 2 opinion of this Court, there is no necessity for the amendment of the written statement. Rather, the same can be taken into consideration at the time of final adjudication and not at this juncture because any observation made by this Court regarding the choice of the landlord, would prejudice the parties. There is no illegality or ambiguity in the impugned order. Dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) November 02,2011 JUDGE Jiten