IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1844 of 2009. Date of Decision: 6th July, 2009. Rajan Arora Petitioner through Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate Versus Sham Dass Bajaj & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner – tenant is aggrieved at the order dated 22.1.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed after observing that the subsequent events sought to be pleaded can otherwise be proved by leading evidence. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. It appears that the petitioner-tenant wants to prove on record that during the pendency of the eviction petition, the respondent – landlord has got vacated the adjoining premises, as a result thereto, he no longer requires the disputed premises for personal necessity. With a view to expedite the early disposal of the eviction petition and keeping in view the fact the petitioner has already disputed the bonafide necessity of the landord, this revision petition is disposed of with the observations that the petitioner shall be at liberty to lead evidence and prove that the respondent – landlord has sufficient alternative accommodation with him and does not require the premises in question for personal necessity. The evidence to that effect, if lead, shall be considered by the Rent Controller in accordance with law. The Rent Controller shall endeavour to dispose of the eviction petition within a period of six months, if possible. Disposed of. Dasti. July 06, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE