CR No.2353 of 2011 (O&M) -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2353 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:18.05.2011. Smt. Uma Ratti and others ...Petitioners Versus Avinash Sharma and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar dated 07.01.2011 by which the application filed by the tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] for amendment of the written statement at the stage of appeal, has been declined. The landlord filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] for eviction of the tenant Parshotam Dev Ratti from two shops forming part of House No.NC- 235, Chowk Adda Hoshiarpur, Jalandhar which were let out to him @ `360/- per month, inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent w.e.f. March, 2002 till the filing of the eviction petition and the building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenant on 09.01.2009 against which the tenant filed statutory appeal before the learned Appellate Authority. During the pendency of appeal, he filed an application for seeking amendment of the written statement to plead that the landlord is doing the business under the name and CR No.2353 of 2011 (O&M) -2- **** style of M/s. R.R. Plastics at District Una and is having GST No.2422 and CST No.2433 registered with Himachal Pradesh Sales Tax Department. The learned Appellate Authority had found that against the order of eviction dated 09.01.2009, the appeal is still pending and when it was fixed for arguments, then the present application for amendment of written statement has been filed by the tenant who had not attached any document to take the Court into confidence with regard to the plea that the landlord is running the business at District Una. Aggrieved against the order of dismissal of the application for amendment of the written statement by the learned Appellate Authority, the present revision petition has been preferred by the tenant who was given repeated adjournments in order to adduce some document as it is alleged that an application for additional evidence has also been filed by him before the learned Appellate Authority in order to, prima facie, prove that the landlord is running an industrial unit at Una, but the petitioner/tenant has failed to bring any such document on record, therefore, in my considered opinion, the learned Appellate Authority has not committed any error of law in not accepting the application which was filed at the stage of argument of the appeal, which was apparently a ploy to delay the proceedings in order to retain possession of the demised premises with him for a long time. In view of the above, the revision petition is found to be without any merit and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. May 18, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge