IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.441 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:10.03.2009 Surjit Kumar Sahai ...Petitioner versus Salim Ahmed ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.I.K.Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.K.Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sangeeta Dhanda, Advocate for the respondent. 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) C.M.No.5934-CII of 2009 C.M. is allowed. Exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures R-1 to R-8 is granted. C.M.No.5935-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Annexures R-1 to R-8 are taken on record. C.R. No.441 of 2009 1. The revision is against the dismissal of the petition for an amendment in the written statement seeking to bring certain additional events alleged to have taken place subsequent to the filing of the petition. The application was disallowed by the Rent Controller on the ground that the proceedings has been pending for a long number of years and that it was at the final stage of hearing. C.R. No.441 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - 2. The contention of the revision petitioner before this Court is that the landlord had made averments in the petition that his son had married and he had children and the needs of the family have increased. This contention, according to the tenant makes relevant the reference to the subsequent event that the son, his wife and his children had migrated to Australia and the petitioner himself was preparing to migrate to Australia where his son have already migrated. It is also sought to be contended by the amended pleadings that the landlord had closed down his business, preparatory to his intended migration. 3. All these contentions which are sought to be raised by the petitioner are disputed by the counsel for the respondent. It is further contended by her that amendment itself is an attempt to delay the proceedings. She further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Vidyabai & Ors. V. Padmalatha & Anr.-2009(1)R.A.J., holding that an amendment shall not be allowed subsequent to the commencement of trial. 4. The whole scheme of subsequent events as relevant has come only through the Rent Controller jurisprudence and averments regarding the subsequent events would be permitted to be taken regardless of the time when produced before the trial Court or the Appellate Court or the Revisional Court. The delay itself could not be a point for rejection in a case where the delay is not the occasion but only in relation to the date of original pleading. Again the truth or otherwise of the contentions in the amended pleadings would not be a matter for adjudication at the time of consideration of the application but it would C.R. No.441 of 2009 (O&M) - 3 - be a matter that would fall for consideration after the amendment is ordered and if the parties join issues on the averments that are disputed. I can still appreciate that the proceedings are pending for a long time but I still find it a sufficient cause for allowing the amendment if only it is to record the subsequent event which may or may not be true. 5. While allowing the revision, I direct that the Rent Controller shall permit the landlord to file his written statement to the amended petition and allow for evidence only with reference to the amended pleadings with opportunities given to both parties to substantiate the respective claims. The entire process shall be completed within three months and shall report to this Court after disposal of the case. 6. Civil Revision is disposed of in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.03.2009 sanjeev