IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5303 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.10.2009 Sukhdarshan Singh .....Petitioner versus Dr.Ghan Shyam Bhasin and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Surinder Gandhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the order dated 18.8.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Samrala, dismissing his application for amendment of the written statement. One Dr.Ghan Shyam Bhasin-respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner and his wife, inter-alia, on the ground of personal necessity. After completion of the pleadings and framing of issues, the landlord has already led his evidence, though some of his witnesses are yet to be cross-examined. At this stage, the petitioner moved an application for amendment of the written statement so as to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant. According to the petitioner, the C.R. No.5303 of 2009 (O&M) 2 respondent-landlord claims to have purchased the demised premises by way of a sale deed dated 29.4.2004 from Sarita Goyal-vendor who was daughter of Ram Murti (since deceased), the actual owner of the property in dispute. Having heard counsel for the petitioner at some length, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The amendment application is liable to be dismissed on more than one counts. Firstly, the plea sought to be introduced is an after-thought and cannot be allowed at a belated stage when the trial has started and the evidence, though in part, has also been led. Secondly, the documents relied upon by the petitioner himself suggest that Ram Murti (since dead) was admittedly the owner of the property in dispute and as per the Municipal record, Sarita Devi has inherited his estate being one of his legal heirs. The respondent has admittedly purchased the demised property from Sarita Devi. Thirdly, the petitioner- tenant has no right whatsoever to question the title of his landlord. The revision petition stands dismissed. 07-10-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE