CR No.1717 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1717 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:29.04.2011. Avtar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Tara Rani ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Jagmohan S. Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against order dated 15.09.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Sangrur by which an application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] has been declined. In short, the landlord filed an eviction petition in respect of a shop, inter alia, on the ground of arrears of rent. The tenant did not appear despite service, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte on 21.08.2007 which order was set aside on 16.09.2008. Thereafter, the landlord filed an application for assessment of provisional rent which was assessed by the Rent Controller for 38 months @ `6,000/- per month, amounting to `2,28,000/- along with interest and costs which came to be `2,50,730/-, but he failed to pay the same and consequently he was ordered to vacate the demised premises within 2 months from 06.01.2009. During the pendency of appeal, the tenant filed an application for seeking amendment in the written statement for adding the ground that the tenant was in possession of a Chaubara as well @ `500/- per month and has paid its rent, but could not take this plea in the written statement. The said plea CR No.1717 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ***** was negatived by the learned Appellate Authority on the ground that it is not a plea which was not within the knowledge of the tenant at the time when the written statement was filed, rather the tenant had alleged that the demised premises (shop) was in his possession at a monthly rent of `5,500/- instead of `6,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the amendment sought would not change the nature of the dispute, rather it would help the Court below to decide the dispute finally between the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record from which I have found that such a plea at the stage of appeal cannot be permitted to be taken by the tenant which was already in the knowledge of tenant at the time when the written statement was filed by him before the learned Rent Controller. It is apparently an afterthought proposition on the part of the tenant. In view of the above, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine though without any order as to costs. April 29, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge