Civil Revision No. 629 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 629 of 2009 Date of decision: 26.05.2009. Jagdish Kumari ...Petitioner Versus Satpal and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Pardeep Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.S.Rekhi, Advocate for the respondents ***** S.D.ANAND, J. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the petitioner herein had initially applied for ejectment of the respondents on a plea of personal necessity and also a plea that respondent no.1 had unauthorisedly sublet the premises let out to him in favour of respondent no.2. The petitioner was non-suited on both the counts. The finding recorded at the trial was that the respondent no.2 was a direct tenant under the petitioner herein. The plea of subletting was, accordingly, negatived. It is in appeal only that the petitioner filed a plea for amendment of ejectment petition to obtain the leave of the Court to Civil Revision No. 629 of 2009 -2- **** aver therein the precise date upon which the respondent no.2 had executed a rent note in favour of the respondent no.1. The plea, raised in support of the application, was that the precision about the date, which could not come about during the trial for want of relevant information, would enable the petitioner to obtain the invalidation of the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court. It is apparent from the quoted pleadings of the parties that the petitioner had raised a precise plea at the trial that respondent no.1, who was tenant under him, had sublet the premises to the other respondent without any authorisation from him and further that the last indicated ( i.e. petitioner herein) is entitled to get the premises under tenancy vacated for his personal use. No date of the rent note was mentioned in the pleadings at the trial. It is only in appeal (after having been non-suited at the trial), that the petitioner opted to file the amendment plea aforementioned. There can be no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner wants to wriggle out of the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court on point of subletting. The absence of mention of rent note about subletting, obviously, weighed with the learned Trial Court in obtaining the view aforementioned. The allowance of the plea would not only enable the petitioner to wriggle out of predicament of facing a situation where he was non-suited for want of evidence in the context of plea of subletting, it shall also enable him to fill up the lacunae in the case and get the matter re-adjudicated. All this cannot be countenanced by law. I do not find anything illegal in the Civil Revision No. 629 of 2009 -3- **** manner of appreciation of facts by the learned Trial Court. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 26, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge