Civil Revison No.6920 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revison No.6920 of 2009 Date of decision:04.02.2010. Lalit Mohan ...Petitioner Versus Bal Ram ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner – landlord is in revision against the impugned order dated 16.10.2009, vide which a plea filed by him to obtain the leave of the Rent Controller to amend the petition was declined. In the petition, the petitioner – landlord had raised a plea of personal necessity. However, the petition did not contain an averment that he has not vacated any such building in the said urban area without any sufficient cause since the enforcement of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The amendment plea applied for the leave of the Rent Controller to make that averment. The learned Rent Controller noticed that the plea was too belated to be allowed as the parties had already concluded their evidence. Mr. Khunger, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that the allowance of the impugned plea would not change the nature of the petition and further that no irreparable damage Civil Revison No.6920 of 2009 -2- will be caused to the party opposite. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent resists the plea aforementioned by pointing out that the endeavour on the part of the petitioner herein is to be able to resist a legal flaw which could be raised at the time of final arguments about the petition being invalid for want of statutory averment to the above effect. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the parties have concluded their evidence and that the plea for amendment has come to be filed after more than a decade of the pendency of the petition. Obviously, the question of maintainability of the petition would require adjudication in the light of the fact that the petition is not averred to contain one particular part of the statutory requirement. The petitioner herein cannot be allowed to validate that lacuna. The petition is devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The interim order dated 26.11.2009 shall stand vacated. The Registry shall communicate the vacation of the order to the learned Rent Controller forthwith. February 04, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE