Civil Revision Nos.1210 and 1181 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision Nos.1210 and 1181 of 2011 Date of Decision: July 19, 2011 Sukhdev Singh .......Petitioner Versus Smt.Akki Bai Oswal Trust and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.IS Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the respondents. <><><> RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This order will dispose of two revision petitions as common questions of fact & law are involved therein. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No.1210 of 2011. This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 14.1.2011, Annexure P-1, passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby the application filed by the respondent-landlord for amendment of ejectment petition has been allowed. The petition for ejectment against the petitioner was filed on 23.4.2007. Vide application dated 29.7.2008, the respondent-trust prayed that they may be allowed to amend the pleadings in view of the subsequent events i.e. the re-registration Civil Revision Nos.1210 and 1181 of 2011 2 of the trust on 9.6.2008. The said amendment was allowed. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by the proposed amendment, the respondent has been allowed to fill up the lacuna in his case which cannot be allowed by way of amendment and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, whereas, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submitted that the amendment was of clarificatory in nature and was necessitated because of the re-registration of the trust which had been earlier registered in the year 1955 and the amendment allowed by the Rent Controller has not changed the nature of the ejectment petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The relevant observations of the impugned order reads as follows: “After hearing learned counsel for both the parties at length on the application for amendment of petition, this Court finds that present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and that the petitioner required the property for his personal use and occupation. The present petition is at initial stage and issues in this petition are yet to lead their respective evidence. No prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the instant application is allowed. Moreover, the nature of present petition is also not going to be changed. Accordingly, the present application in hand for amendment of petition is allowed.” Civil Revision Nos.1210 and 1181 of 2011 3 Admittedly, the ejectment petition is at the initial stage. Even the issues have not been framed in the petition. The petitioner has not been prejudiced in any manner by the impugned amendment as he has a right to rebut the averments made by the respondent-landlord by way of amendment. In view of the above, I find no error of law in the impugned order. Revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. A photo copy of the order be placed on the file of connected case. ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) JULY 19, 2011 JUDGE SRM