Civil Revision No. 593 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 593 of 2010 Date of Decision: 1.10.2010 Vijay Kumar …Petitioner Versus Santosh Jain and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Moninder Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Chaman Lal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate for respondent no.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed to assail the order dated 19.10.2009, passed by the Rent Controller, Samana, whereby he permitted respondent No.1/landlady to tender into evidence her supplementary affidavit and the same be read as a part of her examination-in-chief. In the present case, ejectment petition was filed by the landlady on 27.3.2006. A written statement was filed on 28.7.2006. Thereafter, replication was filed by the landlady on 14.9.2006 and on the same day, the issues were drawn. The landlady has tendered her Civil Revision No. 593 of 2010 2 affidavit, into her evidence, on 20.8.2007. Thereafter, on 5.11.2007, an application for amendment of the petition was filed by the landlady stating therein that due to inadvertence an averment to comply with the statutory provisions was not made. Therefore, she be permitted to amend the petition, in consonance with the statutory requirements. The landlady intended to introduce the following portion in the ejectment petition, by way of an amendment:- “...The petitioner or her children are not occupying within area of Municipal Council, Samana/Urban area of Samana for purpose of business of the petitioner or her children any other rented or other shop. No such shop was ever vacated by the petitioner or her husband without sufficient cause within urban area/Municipal Limits of Samana Town where the shop in question is situated”. The amendment was allowed and the amended ejectment petition was filed, wherein the above said portion was also pleaded. In pursuance of the affidavit filed, before the amendment, the petitioner/tenant had cross-examined the landlady. Lateron, an application was filed by the landlady with a prayer that she be allowed to submit the portion which was allowed to be brought on record by way of amendment. This was opposed by the tenant. However, the objections, so raised by the tenant, were dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition is filed against the impugned order, whereby the Rent Controller permitted the landlady to supplement her affidavit submitted in examination-in-chief. Civil Revision No. 593 of 2010 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in case the respondent/landlady depose in the witness box as to what was left in the affidavit, in consonance with the amendment, he will have no objection but the landlady should not be permitted to supplement more than as to what was pleaded by way of amendment. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/landlady has very fairly stated that in case the witness is recalled, she will only state as to what was stated by way of amendment and further opportunity of cross- examination be afforded to the tenant. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, which have been noticed above, the present revision petition is disposed of by directing the Rent Controller to recall landlady to depose in examination-in-chief only to the limited extent as to what was pleaded in the amendment and learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner shall be allowed to cross-examine her thereafter. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 1, 2010 “DK”