IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 1979 of 2008. Date of Decision: 08th May, 2008. Mohinder Pal Malhotra & Anr. Petitioners through Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate Versus Mool Raj Bajaj & Anr. ...Respondents through Mr. Gurcharan Dass, 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 16th February, 2008 passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC moved by the petitioner-tenant for amendment of the written statement, has been dismissed. The petitioner/tenant has taken a plea in the written statement that the subject premises is not required by the respondent-landlord for his bona-fide personal necessity as he along with his sons and other family members is already running business in three shops. The petitioner-tenant, however, sought amendment of the written statement in order to specifically incorporate that the respondent-landlord is running the business under the name and style of “Bajaj Opticals”. The aforementioned amendment having been declined by the Rent Controller, this revision petition has been filed. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent- landlord that in the original written statement, the petitioner-tenant has specifically averred that the landlord is running his business along with his son and daughter-in-law in three shops “under the name and style of Bajaj Opticals”. According to the learned counsel, in view of the averment already made by the petitioner-tenant in para 2(b) of his original written statement, the proposed amendment is superfluous. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the averments made by the petitioner - tenant in para 2(b) of the written statement have been understood and taken to mean by the respondent-landlord as an allegation as if he is allegedly running the business in three shops along with his son and daughter-in-law under the name and style of M/s Bajaj Opticals, there is no legal necessity for the petitioner to seek any amendment to further clarify the same plea, which he may prove by leading his evidence. With these observations, this petition is disposed of. May 08, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE