IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2150 of 2009 Date of decision:18.05.2009 Amrit Lal ...Petitioner versus Harish Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate for respondent No.1 ----- 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 revision is against the dismissal of the application to amend the written statement bringing to light an alleged subsequent event to the filing of the petition. The Appellate Court dismissed the petition and the appellant-tenant before the Appellate Authority is the revision-petitioner before this Court. 2. The amendment sought contained the following words:- “Rohit Kumar has gone abroad and left India. The alleged bona fide need diminishes.” 3. By such a contention the tenant's attempt was to show that the personal requirement of the landlord as had been proffered in the Civil Revision No.2150 of 2009 - 2 - petition no longer availed to him. The learned counsel for the respondent admits the fact that the son had gone away from India but his contention was that he was soon returning and would be sitting idle. He however admitted that his son had gone abroad for higher studies in Australia and that he was still going to return and the need of the landlord did not diminish. If such a contention was there in the reply, it at least proves one thing, that the person on whose behalf the property was sought for the personal requirement of the landlord was not in India at the time when adjudication was being made at the Appellate Court. It could well be that the need subsists by the fact that the person who had gone abroad was returning. It is one thing to state that in spite of a subsequent event, the landlord's need did not diminish, but quite another to say that the amendment itself cannot be permitted to bring to light a subsequent event. By allowing the amendment the tenant was not obtaining any due advantage. He was putting the whole fact within the realm of judicial consideration and the landlord would have got equally an opportunity to explain how the needs still subsisted. The rejection of the application for amendment by the Appellate Court stating that there was no necessity for allowing the amendment for it would prolong the proceedings but at the same time also stating that it would in any event allow the parties to raise the plea that the son had left India at the time of final arguments is not appropriate. First of all, it would not have been possible for the tenant to even take a plea that the son of the landlord had left India without such an averment being available as a part of the pleadings, if pleading shall mean only the petition and the written statement. An affidavit Civil Revision No.2150 of 2009 - 3 - accompanying an amendment petition which is rejected cannot be taken as a part of reading on which the tenant could have urged his contention or the landlord to join issues as to how the subsequent event did not materially alter the situation for the landlord. If there was a delay occasioned by such an amendment, it is delayed on the happening of a subsequent event and that could have been never a ground to reject an amendment. 4. The Civil Revision under such circumstances is allowed permitting the appellant-tenant to bring an amendment to the written statement and it shall be open for the landlord to file his reply taking up appropriate response for the amendment pleadings. If necessary the respective contentions could be supported by such affidavits as the party deemed necessary. The Appellate Authority shall undertake the enquiry in appeal on the pleadings in the entirety on the basis of material already available and on the basis of the additional pleadings and affidavits, if now permitted to be done by this order. 5. The Civil Revision is disposed of in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 18.05.2009 sanjeev