CR No.2252 of 2011(O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2252 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision:01.04.2011. Ram Kumar Aggarwal and another ...Petitioners Vs. Pt. Arun Kumar Sharma and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenants are in revision against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh dated 08.02.2011 by which an application filed by the landlords under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] for amendment of the eviction petition has been allowed subject to payment of `1,000/- as costs. The landlords filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] for eviction of the petitioners/tenants from the entire plot No.37, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh on the ground of non-payment of rent. It was alleged in the amendment application that the fact regarding increase of rent @ 5% every year could not be mentioned in the eviction petition due to oversight and they also prayed for impleadment of M/s Aggarwal Oil Mills, 37, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh besides substituting the prayer clause. The application was contested by the petitioners/tenants, but the learned Rent Controller allowed the application on the ground that respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 have admitted in their written statement regarding oral agreement between the parties CR No.2252 of 2011(O&M) -2- ***** for 5% increase in the rent every year which fact is not going to change the nature of the eviction petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners though argued emphatically for reversing the order of the learned Rent Controller, but he hardly could point out any defect in the impugned order insofar as the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is concerned. The amendment sought is only with regard to the increase of 5% of rent every year which was agreed between the parties and the impleadment of M/s Aggarwal Oil Mills besides the amendment in the prayer clause is all innocuous and is not going to change the nature of the eviction petition. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. April 01, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge