Civil Revision No. 3054 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3054 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.5.2010 Mohan Murari Mohil ...Petitioner Versus Ramesh Chand and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr.Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. S.D.ANAND, J. The respondent-landlord filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner-tenant on a plea of personal necessity. The plea was resisted by the petitioner-tenant by averring that the respondents-landlord runs a play way school and another educational institution as well. The learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment action vide order dated 22.3.2007. In the course of the pendency of the appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, the petitioner-tenant filed a plea for amendment of the reply in order to be able to indicate how exactly the proprietary and possessory title of the play school had come to vest in the respondent-landlord. The plea did not find favour with the learned Appellate Authority which held that the relevant plea having already been taken up in the course of the reply, the application lacked bonafides and appeared to have aimed only at delaying the proceedings. Civil Revision No. 3054 of 2010 -2- **** Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner- tenant, is not in a position to dispute that the plea with regard to availability of other premises has already been raised in the course of the reply. Infact, the learned counsel also agreed that the acquisition of title of the property used as a play way school had been admitted by respondent Ramesh Chander in the course of the reply to the amendment application. (A copy of the reply is available on record as Annexure P-4). (“A portion of the residential house measuring 43'X9” X 29” fell into the share of the respondent in a family partition towards Sheron Distributory. In that residential portion a playway school has been strated by Ankur Jindal s/o Ramesh Chand respondent. .... However, it is admitted that Ramesh Chand is the owner of the building and this fact is already on the file as rent note Ex. R2 as been produced by the appellant.”) Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon Arya Mittal and another Vs. Harbans Lal and another 2009 (2) HLR 133 to assail the impugned order is thoroughly misconceived for want of any parallel between the facts of that case and the case before this Court. The relevant fact having been admitted in the course of the reply, there is no need to effect the amendment. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. Disposed of accordingly. May 10, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge