IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No. 6148 of 2011 Date of Decision:- 4.10.2011 Prem Nath ....Petitioner vs. Pawan Kumar and others ....Respondents *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR *** Present:- Mr. R.S.Pathania, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present petitioner-tenant is aggrieved with order dated 1.9.2011 passed by the Rent Controller, Mukerian, by virtue of which his application for amendment of written statement has been dismissed. The facts are that the present petitioner is tenant in the shop owned by Chiman Lal Mani. He sold this shop in the year 2002 to Prem Sagar. After the death of Prem Sagar, his legal representatives filed an ejectment application on the ground of non-payment of rent since February, 2003, and personal necessity. Petitioner-tenant filed written statement denying their ownership over the disputed shop. Subsequently, on the request of the petitioner-tenant for production of the sale-deed, it was produced in Court on 5.4.2011. Petitioner-tenant filed an application for amendment of the written statement only to the effect that his earlier stand that “relationship between the parties does not exist” be amended to the effect that “ the same now exists”. His application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 1.9.2011. Hence, this revision. Heard. The case is at the initial stage. The evidence is yet to be led. Amendment as prayed will not cause any prejudice to the opposite side. It is also well settled that amendment in respect of the written statement is C.R No. 6148 of 2011 -2- granted more liberally than in the plaint. By way of proposed amendment, the tenant-petitioner only seeks to indicate that now upon production of the sale-deed, relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. In this back-drop of the facts, the present revision is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the present petitioner is allowed to amend his written statement as prayed; however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by him to the opposite side. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. October 04, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE