P.S. Patwalia, J. - (1.) The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 22-03-2004 passed by Rent Controller, Samana, whereby the petitioners-landlords (respondents herein) have been permitted to amend their petition by incorporating the line to state that they have not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act in the urban area of Samaria. It has been specifically noted in the order that the petitioners-landlords (respondents herein) have stated before the Court that no further evidence would be led by them on the allowing of the amendment.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, however, submits that the amendment could not have been allowed at a stage when the case was ripe for final arguments. For this proposition, he has relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 993.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the incorporation of this clause was very crucial for just and proper decision of the case. It is pointed out that, in fact, in the evidence of the parties, the tenant (revision petitioner herein) has led no evidence to show that the landlord has vacated any such building within the area of Samana prior to the filing of this petition. The amendment allowed, therefore, is merely clarificatory.;