Civil Revision No. 4848 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4848 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.11.2010. Man Kaur and another ....Petitioners Versus Malkiat Singh ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Advocate for the respondent. MAHESH GROVER, J (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order of Rent Controller, Bathinda, dated 19.7.2010 vide which the application moved by the respondent-landlord under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the petition preferred by him under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the proceedings had been pending for the last nine years and it is only after the adducing of evidence by them that the respondent-landlord has woken up to remove the defective ingredients in his pleadings and has rather tried to fill up the lacuna which the petitioners were able to bring out in the case and for which the benefit ought to go to the petitioners and in the eventuality of the amendment being allowed such benefit and a right which has occurred to the petitioners stood defeated. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that the plea of personal necessity was taken up by him in the first instance and the subsequent plea by way of amendment is merely clarifactory and does not prejudice the case of the petitioners in any manner. He further states that no further evidence is required and whatever evidence is already on record is sufficient to substantiate his case. Civil Revision No. 4848 of 2010 (O&M) 2 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order I am of the opinion that the petition does not merit acceptance. The conceded case of the parties is that proceedings under the Rent Act for eviction of the petitioners from the demised premises is pending and one of the ground taken up by the respondent for the said purpose is of personal necessity i.e. the premises are required “for urgently and bonafidely” by the respondent for setting up an independent business of sewing machines and that the respondent has sufficient experience in this regard having been engaged in the same business in the vicinity of his residence. By way of the amendment the respondent merely sought to clarify the factual position while treating the plea of personal necessity as “ an umbrella plea”. The plea of the petitioners that it is on account of lacuna brought out by the petitioners during the course of proceedings, that the respondent has become wiser so as to incorporate the plea which he now seeks to do is besotted with fallacy, for the simple reason that the plea of personal necessity as it is existed could also have been sufficient to enable the Court to appreciate the evidence in the backdrop of such a plea and the amended plea as sought to be pleaded by the respondent without production of any further evidence is not likely to prejudice the case of the petitioners. In view of this, there is no merit in the petition. The counsel for respondent categorically states that he does not wish to lead any evidence, however, this shall not mean to depriving the right of the petitioners to controvert the plea in the amended petition. Dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) 30.11.2010 JUDGE Reema