IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3878 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 15th July, 2009. Om Parkash Petitioner through Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate Versus Mohinder Kumar Respondents through. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner – tenant challenges the order dated 27.3.2009 passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division], Faridabad, dismissing his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement. The respondent – landlord filed the present eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban [Control of Rent and Eviction] Act, 1973 in the year 2004. After the petitioner had filed his written statement and the issues were framed, the respondent – landlord started leading his evidence. Since one of the ground for eviction taken by the landlord is that the subject premises has become unfit for human habitation, a Government Approved Valuer inspected the premises on behalf of the respondent – landlord on 29.11.2005 and submitted his report along with photographs. It is thereafter that the petitioner moved the present application to amend the written statement, inter-alia, on the ground that a fire broke in the night intervening 3rd and 4th January, 2006 in which the roof of the shop was damaged which he got replaced with new tins on 6th January, 2006. Since the respondent – landlord kept on pressurizing the petitioner – tenant to remove the new tins put on the roof, efforts for a settlement were made and with the intervention of some respectables, the respondent – landlord is said to have agreed to sell the disputed shop to the petitioner – tenant for a sum of Rs. 15 lacs. The entire sale consideration of Rs.15 lacs was allegedly paid to the landlord on different dates and before 3.4.2006. However, the landlord thereafter backed out and refused to execute the sale deed. The petitioner – tenant sought amendment of the written statement to prove the afore-stated 'subsequent events'. The Rent Controller has dismissed the application after observing that no 'agreement to sell' or any proof whatsoever of the alleged payment of sale consideration of Rs. 15 lacs has been placed on record, especially when the respondent – landlord has refuted the petitioner's claim. The Rent Controller has further observed that the landlord has already started leading his evidence and the case has been adjourned several times at the request of the petitioner – tenant to cross-examine the landlord's witnesses. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and considering the legislative import behind the proviso added to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by Act No. 22 of 2002, I am of the considered view that the Rent Controller has committed no error of jurisdiction in declining the amendment at a stage when the respondent – landlord had already started leading his evidence. Besides this, the story put forth by the petitioner regarding agreement to sell and/or payment of Rs.15 lacs in cash and that too without any receipt, does not inspire confidence. No ground to interfere with the impugned order is, thus, made out. Dismissed. July 15, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE