Civil Revison No.707 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revison No.707 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:02.02.2010. Ramesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Chander Prabha ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. In this petition, directed against the order dated 23.07.2009 of the learned Trial Court, the grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is as under: - The respondent – landlady filed two ejectment petitions. In the ejectment petition in hand, she raised a plea for ejectment of the petitioner – tenant from the tenanted premises on an averment that the latter was in arrears of the rent and that he was guilty of having done an act which materially impaired the value and utility of the building. In the course of the trial, the respondent – landlord applied for the amendment of the pleadings and to thereby include therein an averment that she requires the tenanted premises for her own use and occupation. That plea came to be allowed. It is in the context of that plea that the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the respondent – landlady, in an another ejectment petition filed against the petitioner herein, had testified on oath that she does not keep good health and that she is not doing any work except the household chores. As against it, the argument proceeds, Civil Revison No.707 of 2010 (O&M) -2- she had made an averment in the present petition that she is conversant with the job of tailoring, that she had started undertaking tailoring assignments in her residential house itself 4-5 months ago and that she requires the tenanted premise for extension of her business and to have proper premises to run her business. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not unmindful of the fact that it would be open to the petitioner herein to confront the respondent – landlady with her previous statement and the pleadings made by her in the course of the earlier ejectment petition. He states that this petition may be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to raise all these pleas at the main trial. Dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty aforementioned. February 02, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE