CR No.7491 of 2009.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.7491 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 16.12.2009 **** Smt. Rajni Arora and others . . . . Petitioners VS. Smt. Krishna . . . . Respondent **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the petitioners **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Hisar, whereby, amendment of the written statement sought by the petitioner-tenants, at the appellate stage has been declined. (2). The petitioner-tenants, against whom an eviction order has been passed by the Rent Controller, Hisar, are in appeal. During pendency of the appeal, they have sought amendment of the written statement on the basis of the alleged subsequent events, namely, that the respondent- landlord has sought their eviction on the premise that the shop in dispute is required for the opening the clinic of his son who is a MBBS Doctor. According to the petitioner- tenants, the son of the respondent-landlord has now joined the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and CR No.7491 of 2009.doc - 2 - has executed a bond to serve the said Institute for 10 years. In view of this, it is claimed that the need of the respondent-landlord has disappeared. (3). From the impugned order itself, it is apparent that the respondent-landlord has not disputed the fact that his son has joined the AIIMS for a three-year Course for further improvement in his specialized qualification. (4). Reliance placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Ismail vs. Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar, 2009(4)RCR (Civil) is, therefore, wholly misconceived. That was a case where the eviction from two shops was sought by the landlord on the ground that his two sons were to start their businesses. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings one son of the landlord died while the other was absconding for 8-9 years, namely, a stage where civil death could be declared. In these circumstances, their Lordships directed that the subsequent events were required to be taken into consideration. The circumstances in the present case are altogether different. (5). The factum of joining AIIMS by the son of the respondent- landlord during the period when the shop in dispute still continues to be in possession of the tenants, is a fact which can otherwise be considered by the Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal. No amendment or fact finding report for that purpose is required. (6). Dismissed. CR No.7491 of 2009.doc - 3 - (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 16.12.2009 vishal shonkar