IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1278 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 13th July, 2009. Mahesh Chand Petitioner through Mr. R.S.Sihota, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.R.Rana, Advocate. Versus Om Parkash Respondent through Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate. 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) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 6.2.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority, Faridabad, allowing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC moved by the respondent- landlord/appellant for amendment of the eviction petition to take an additional plea that the subject premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The aggrieved tenant has approached this Court. The respondent – landlord has filed an eviction petition, inter-alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent and that the premises is required for his personal use and occupation. The Rent Controller, however, dismissed the eviction petition, against which the respondent – landlord has preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, it is not in dispute that a fire took place in the premises on 18.10.2006. While the respondent claims that Karris, Shahtir and shutters etc. of the shop have completely burnt, the petitioner – tenant has averred that only minor damage has been caused. On the basis of the aforementioned incident which admittedly took place during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent – landlord has sought amendment of the eviction petition so as to take the additional plea, noticed above. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties have fairly agreed for disposal of this revision petition in the following terms:- [i] the order passed by the Appellate Authority permitting the respondent – landlord to amend his eviction petition is upheld and he is permitted to take the additional plea that the subject premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation on account of the fire broke out on 18.10.2006; [ii] the petitioner – tenant shall be at liberty to file an amended written statement disputing the aforementioned plea, if so advised; [iii] in case the petitioner-tenant disputes the additional ground allowed to be taken by the respondent – landlord, a specific issue as to whether or not the subject premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation on account of fire which took place on 18.10.2006, shall be framed and the matter shall be remitted to the Rent Controller, Palwal, permitting the parties to lead their respective evidence and return a firm finding of fact on that issue. The party against whom the said issue is answered shall be at liberty to file Cross Appeal and/or supplement the pending appeal, as the case may be, and the Appellate Authority shall thereafter decide the same in accordance with law. Disposed of. Dasti July 13, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE