CR No.546 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ******* IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.546 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:27.01.2011. Jasbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus Tilak Raj ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Vinod Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 06.12.2010 by which an application filed by the landlord for amendment of the eviction petition has been dismissed with costs of `1,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the rent petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') in respect of the land measuring 21 Marlas was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 19.02.2008 disbelieving the stand of the petitioner that the tenant was in arrears of rent as well as the petitioner had personal necessity, as he had already got some other land in his possession. He has further submitted that his father Dalip Singh (since deceased) had entered into an agreement to sell the other alleged land regarding which a suit for specific performance was filed by the prospective vendee which was decreed on 05.09.2006, therefore, he was not in possession of the alleged other land. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that the said suit was decreed on 05.09.2006, during the pendency of the rent petition CR No.546 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ******* which came to an end on 19.02.2008. The question arises is as to “whether the petitioner can be granted liberty to amend his eviction petition during the pendency of appeal when he had ample opportunity to file an application for amendment of the subsequent events during the pendency of the eviction petition before the learned Rent Controller.” To my mind, this kind of liberty cannot be granted to the petitioner because for the purpose of amendment, the party has to show that despite the exercise of due diligence, the matter was not within his knowledge, but here is the case where father of the petitioner himself was the defendant in the suit for specific performance, therefore, this fact was earlier within his knowledge which could have been easily brought on record during the pendency of eviction petition before the learned Rent Controller. In view thereof, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Authority and hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. January 27, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE