IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2051 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:23.03.2011 Dalip Kumar . . .Petitioner Versus Mahinder Kumar . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. P.K.Mutneja, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) The petitioner is in revision against the order dated 28.02.2011 by which an application filed by him for amendment of the written statement at the stage of rebuttal and arguments has been declined. One of the reasons assigned by the learned Rent Controller for declining the aforesaid application is in para No.6 of the impugned order, in which it is observed as under: - “From the photographs relied upon by the respondent, it is evident that the aforesaid premises bearing No.1-F/107, NIT Faridabad is still residential as only a wooden door is installed in the same than that of an iron shutter (installed on properties by respective neighbours) and no permission has yet been sought for by the petitioner for the conversion of his property from residential to commercial to establish himself or his son in the aforesaid premises. As such, the plea of the respondent that another commercial premises is available to the petitioner to start his business is without any force.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has candidly conceded that this portion of the impugned order, which has weighed with the learned Rent Controller is not challenged by him in the grounds of revision nor he could challenge it before me during the course of arguments. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MARCH 23, 2011 JUDGE vinod