IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1127 of 2010 Date of decision: 18th August, 2010 Rajinder Lal … Petitioner Versus Gopal Krishan Vasudeva … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. P.K. Kukreja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed to assail the impugned order (Annexure P-1) passed by the Rent Controller on 1st February, 2010, whereby issue No.2 was reframed as under: “2. Whether the petitioner is in bonafide need of demised premises for his own requirement? OPP” Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Rent Controller was barred from reframing the issue, as there was no justifiable cause to do so, especially when on 22nd April, 2003, the landlord made a statement to abandon this issue and subsequently also on 24th January, 2007 he had given-up issue No.2. From a perusal of the statement made by the landlord on 22nd April, 2003, it is apparent that he had withdrawn the petition filed under Section 13-A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Civil Revision No.1127 of 2010 Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’). Needless to say, the petition under Section 13-A of the Act was filed for personal necessity. Furthermore, on 24th January, 2007, counsel for the landlord gave a statement that he was giving up issue No.2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since twice it is done, later-on the trial Court could not reframe the issue. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate appearing for the respondent, states that the respondent-landlord is a retired old man, who is not having any accommodation and the premises is required for his personal necessity. It is stated that the landlord could not comprehend the legal provisions and under the wrong notion and advice, he had made these statements. Mr.Dadwal prays that he be permitted to withdraw the eviction petition with liberty to file a fresh one to justify the reasons, under which, such statements were made. Counsel for the petitioner has no objection thereto. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of with permission to withdraw the eviction petition and to file a fresh one, as prayed for. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 18, 2010 rps 2