IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7279 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 09, 2010 Firm Arjan Dass Ram Nath and another. …Petitioners Versus Sanjiv Kumar. … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 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? Present: Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Tenant – revisionists have invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court, assailing the order dated 12.11.2010 passed by learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, whereby application of the tenant- revisionists seeking amendment in the written statement, was rejected. The brief facts of the present case are that landlord- respondent has filed eviction petition against the tenant – revisionists on the ground of non-payment of rent and bonafide requirement of the demised premises for his own C.R.No. 7279 of 2010 personal use and need. In the eviction petition, tenant – revisionist herein has moved an amendment application stating therein that the fact, that mother of the landlord has purchased the property wherein landlord is carrying on business, should be allowed to be incorporated in the written statement. Learned Rent Controller has observed that in the present case, need of the landlord is to be seen, hence, proposed amendment is not necessary. In the opinion of this Court, even if landlord is carrying on any business in the property owned by his parents, he has every right to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground that he needs space to establish himself in a business in the property owned by him. Every landlord has got right to use his own property and landlord cannot be denied to use his own property on the ground that he is already using property of his own parents. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or error in the impugned order. Dismissed. November 09, 2010 (Alok Singh) vkd Judge 2