CR No.2792 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** (1) CR No.2792 of 2009 (O&M) Date Of Decision: 01.09.2009 **** Dharam Pal . . . . Petitioner VS. Gurdeep Kaur . . . . Respondent **** (2) CR No.2793 of 2009 (O&M) Date Of Decision: 01.09.2009 **** Dharam Pal . . . . Petitioner VS. Gurdeep Kaur . . . . Respondent **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Manish Prabhakar, Advocate for the respondent **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No.2792 of 2009 and Civil Revision No.2793 of 2009 which are inter se between the parties and raise common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CR No.2792 of 2009. CR No.2792 of 2009 - 2 - The petitioner is a tenant in two shops owned by the respondent-landlord. Two eviction petitions were filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction of the petitioner from both the adjoining shops, inter alia, on the grounds of personal necessity and non- payment of rent etc. Both the eviction petitions have been consolidated and are being tried together by the Rent Controller. When the respondent-landlord had already concluded his evidence, the petitioner-tenant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement based upon the alleged subsequent events. It was averred that there are several shops owned by the respondent-landlord which have been rented out to different tenants and one of the shop bearing No.29 under the tenancy of one Harbaksh Singh Bedi, has now been vacated and the possession handed over to the respondent-landlord as the tenant has migrated to Canada along with his family members. The respondent-landlady opposed the amendment application and refuted the plea that she has got possession of any premises occupied by Harbaksh Singh Bedi, who is claimed to continue as a tenant. An affidavit of Harbaksh Singh Bedi to that effect has also been appended. The aforesaid amendment application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller after observing that petitioner tenant can always prove that the demised premises is not required by the respondent-landlord for his personal use and occupation. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned order. Since the petitioner-tenant has already taken a plea that the demised premises is not required by the respondent-landlord for her bona fide personal use and occupation and the petitioner’s evidence is still to be concluded, it will be open to him to lead evidence to the effect that the premises which was occupied by Harbaksh Singh Bedi – one of the tenants has fallen vacant or possession has been allegedly handed over to the respondent-landlady. However, the petitioner shall have to lead his entire evidence within a reasonable period and at his own responsibility. CR No.2792 of 2009 - 3 - In this view of the matter, no formal amendment of the written statement is required. For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Rent Controller to permit the petitioner to produce evidence to show that in view of the alleged delivery of possession of the shop occupied by Harbaksh Singh Bedi, the respondent-landlady no longer requires the demised premises for her bona fide use and occupation. It is further directed that the petitioner-tenant shall be granted only two opportunities to lead his evidence and the Rent Controller shall make an effort to decide the eviction petition as early as possible and preferably before 31st December, 2009. Disposed of. Dasti (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 01.09.2009 shonkar