IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6352 of 2010 Date of decision: 19th November, 2010 Usha Narula … Petitioner Versus Shree Guru Singh Sabha Udham Singh Nagar Gurudwara … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Shree Guru Singh Sabha Udham Singh Nagar (Regd.) Gurudwara, Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana filed an eviction petition to eject the petitioner-tenant on the ground of personal necessity. After the pleadings had completed, the Rent Controller, Ludhiana formulated the following issues: “a) Whether petitioner is entitled to ejectment of respondent on the ground as prayed for? OPA b) Whether present petition is not maintainable? OPR c) Relief.” After the petitioner-tenant had closed her evidence, the Rent Controller permitted her to lead evidence in rebuttal. An affidavit (Annexure P-1) to this effect was submitted. The primary grievance of the petitioner-tenant is that qua issue No.1, onus was upon the applicant and therefore, he cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal. Counsel for the respondent-landlord has stated that during the pendency of the eviction petition, two shops were vacated by other tenants. This fact was brought into light by the tenant in her evidence, Civil Revision No.6352 of 2010 therefore, it is necessary that the respondent-landlord be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the rightful course for the respondent-landlord was to seek amendment to the eviction petition and state specifically that during the pendency of the petition, two tenants have vacated the premises or landlord could have prayed to the Rent Controller that the evidence led by the tenant that two shops have been vacated, is not in consonance with the pleadings made in the written statement, therefore, such an evidence is not admissible. Vacation by the other tenants during the pendency of the eviction petition was a subsequent event. Had this objection been taken with due diligence, the tenant ought to have come forward to amend the written statement. Since this course has not been adopted by the landlord, he could not be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal, as onus qua issue No.1 was specifically upon the landlord. The principle of fair play and balance of equities demand that the landlord should not be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal. Hence, impugned orders (Annexure P2 dated 25th August, 2010 and Annexure P4 dated 24th September, 2010) are set aside. However, the landlord is granted liberty to pray for amendment to the eviction petition to incorporate the subsequent event. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 19, 2010 rps 2