IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3555 of 2005 Date of decision:19.05.2009 Inderjit Kaur and others ...Petitioners versus Rajinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Bhupinder Singh Thind, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan Slathia, Advocate for the respondent. ----- 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 order dismissing the application for amendment of the written statement filed at the instance of tenant. The contention taken by the tenant was that the landlord had earlier sought for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent in yet another petition which was later withdrawn. He had also contended that by the conduct of the landlord, he had lost his right to apply for personal necessity. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition for amendment observing that since he had not complied with the directions for payment of provisional rent, his amendment to the written statement could not be considered. Civil Revision No.3555 of 2005 - 2 - 2. If on the ground of non-compliance of the directions for payment of provisional rent, the tenant had suffered on order of ejectment and the proceedings had come to an end, probably it would have been justified in disallowing for amendment the petition. While keeping the petition for ejectment still alive, there was no justification for refusing the application for amendment of the pleadings. The Courts shall usually be liberal in considering the matters relating to amendment of the written statement unless the amendment itself was an attempt to withdraw an admission already made or deliberately delayed or caused serious prejudice to the landlord. Such considerations have not entered into the realm of enquiry by the Rent Controller. The order of the Court below rejecting the amendment, is set aside and the Civil Revision is allowed, however making it clear that it will have no bearing whatever on the Rent Controller to do if any independent relief is sought by the landlord for non-payment of the provisional rent which was fixed by the Court. 3. The Civil Revision is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 19.05.2009 sanjeev