CR No.4920 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 17.9.2008 Sushil Kumar Singla ......Petitioner Versus Adarsh Kumar ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Ravi Kapur, Advocate for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge herein is to the order dated July 28,2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby application moved by the petitioner-tenant for amendment of written statement, was dismissed. Respondent-landlord filed ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short “the Act”) against the petitioner-tenant claiming possession of ground-floor of House No.1709, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, inter-alia on the grounds (i) bonafide personal necessity; (ii) non-payment of rent; (iii) material impairment of value and utility of the demised house and (iv) Change of user. Evidence of the parties concluded and the ejectment application was pending for hearing arguments. So much so, petitioner -tenant filed written arguments. Thereafter, an application for seeking amendment to the written statement was filed. The amendment is sought in respect of paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the written statement. The petitioner wanted to refer in paragraph No.3 that he was using the premises for the purpose it was rented out to him. The entire demised premises was not being used by him for the purpose of his office of Chartered Accountant, rather, one of the rooms of the demised house is being used as a retiring room. In paragraph No.4, petitioner has given dimensions of the ground-floor CR No.4920 of 2008 2 and the covered area etc. The purpose to seek amendment was that the demised house is not being used in violation to Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952. Rather, it was the landlord -respondent, who was violating the Regulations of the above said Act and there is no ground for eviction of the petitioner from the demised house. Paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the original written statement have been perused. In both the paragraphs, the same plea has been taken by the petitioner-tenant that the demised house was being used by him for commercial purpose, that is, for running the office of Chartered Accountant from the day one it was rented out to him except that the dimensions of the house under his occupation, were not mentioned. The ejectment application was filed in the year 2004 and the evidence has already been closed. Petitioner-tenant has also filed written arguments. Application for seeking amendment of the written statement was moved after a long delay of about four years of filing of earlier written statement after conclusion of evidence by the parties. In firm opinion of this Court, the amendment of written statement cannot be allowed at this highly belated stage. There is no satisfactory explanation for the delay. It only shows that the application has been filed with oblique motive of delaying the proceedings under the ejectment application. For the reasons aforesaid, the revision petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. It is recorded for the sake of clarity that the observations in this order are only for the limited purpose of disposing of this petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (NAWAB SINGH) 17.9.2008. JUDGE SN