Civil Revision No. 192 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 192 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.5.2010 Tej Bhan ...Petitioner Versus Monica Chaudhary ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Chaman Lal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Bains, Advocate for respondent S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner-landlord filed a petition for ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the tenanted premises on a precise averment that the latter had made unauthorised and unconsented additions and alterations in the tenanted premises which had diminished the value and utility of the premises. In the course of the trial, the petitioner-landlord applied for leave of the Court to amend the petition and to add therein that respondent-tenant had raised some other construction as well. In the course of the reply, the respondent-tenant averred that the window panes which were alleged to have been replaced had, in fact, been broken by miscreants. It is those window panes which had been replaced. Learned Rent Controller held that if there has been any subsequent event, it would furnish a new cause of action to the petitioner-landlord who, instead of applying for Civil Revision No. 192 of 2010 -2- **** amendment to fill up the lacuna, ought to file a fresh application. The line of reasoning adopted by the learned Rent Controller cannot be accepted on the touchstone of law in view of the fact that petitioner-tenant had applied for eviction of the respondent- tenant on an averment of material impairment. There is no reason why he should be forced to file a fresh petition when he can add the subsequent events as well in that very petition. The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned order dated 10.11.2009 shall stand set aside. The amendment application filed by the petitioner-landlord shall stand allowed. May 10, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge