IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 22 of 2010. Date of decision: 2.7.2010. Surjan Singh ….. Petitioner. Vs. Sandeep Sahni …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This revision has been directed against the order dated 29.12.2009 passed by learned Rent Controller, Shimla in case No. 49-2 of 2007. 2. The respondent has filed ejectment petition against the petitioner under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 on several grounds. The petitioner has contested that petition. In the reply to the ejectment petition, the petitioner has taken the plea that respondent is not an agriculturist in Himachal Pradesh and cannot purchase the property In Himachal Pradesh. The building in which the set in question is situated has been illegally and unauthorisedly purchased by the petitioner in violation of Section 118 of H.P. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The petitioner cannot and is not entitled to purchase the property in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 3. The petitioner has filed an application dated 28.6.2009 for amendment of the reply and he intends to take the plea that respondent has fraudulently obtained agriculturist certificate and then purchased the property in question. The application has been opposed by the respondent. The learned Rent Controller has dismissed the application, hence this revision. 4. In the original reply, the petitioner has already taken the plea that respondent is not an agriculturist in Himachal Pradesh and he has purchased the property in question in violation of Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The plea which now the petitioner intends to add by way of amendment, in fact, has already been taken by him in the original reply when he has taken the plea that respondent is not an agriculturist in the State of H.P. He has illegally purchased the property in question. 5. The plea which the petitioner now intends to take by way of amendment of reply is nothing but part of evidence which he is at liberty to adduce at appropriate stage of the case. In fact, the learned Rent Controller while dismissing the application for amendment, has observed that specific defence has already been taken in the reply filed by the petitioner. The proposed amendment is not necessary in order to adjudicate the real controversy between the parties on the point whether the property in question has been illegally purchased by the respondent as per the stand of the petitioner. …3… There is no merit in the revision, which is accordingly dismissed so also the pending application. July 2, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.