Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) Petitioner tenant, at the appellate stage, filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of written statement. He also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 for leading additional evidence before the appellate Court. The following amendment was sought to be made : "3. That the family of the landlord consists of landlord himself, his wife and three sons. The family of the landlord has purchased a property No. B-I-940, Mohalla Deep Nagar Near Gurudwara Civil Lines, in which there are two shops. One of the shops has been let out by them to a person who is running the business of repair of mobile phones and the other shop has been given to a person who is running the business of Dhoop Agarbatties etc. The landlord family owns other property No. B-I-929/1, Deep Nagar, Near Gurudwara Civil Lines, Ludhiana i.e. in the same area, where the property referred to above is situated. There are three shops in this property also and one of the shops is let out to Sh.Hari Om Jyotish Center, one shop is lying vacant and one shop is in occupation of petitioner's son namely Bobby who is also known as Rajesh Kumar."
(2.) Appellate Court, after considering both the prayers, observed as under : "5. No doubt, the present petition was filed by the Respondent for ejectment of the appellant on the ground of personal necessity and same was allowed by the Rent Controller. The petition was filed on 13.02.1999 and it was decided on 19.11.2005. Now the appellant has alleged that the landlord has purchased some property which consisted of three shops but the appellant has not placed on record any documentary proof, showing that the property was purchased by the landlord or that on which date this property was purchased without and documentary proof the plea of the appellant regarding the amendment cannot be accepted because specific plea has been taken by the respondent that he has no other suitable property in the area of Ludhiana and he requires the demised premises for his personal use and occupation. There was sufficient time with the appellant to produce this evidence in the trial Court but no efforts were done by the appellant to prove this fact before the trial Court. Now at this stage when the case is fixed for arguments, the appellant has moved this application without any concrete record. He has not even mentioned the date when the said properties were purchased by the landlord which shows that the appellant has taken this vague plea just to prolong the litigation and nothing application and the same is, hereby, dismissed."
(3.) Present revision petition has been filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India. The discretion exercised by the appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous. Revisional power should not be exercised to disturb discretion of the Court below, if the view formulated is one, which is possible. Mr. Amit Rawal appearing for the respondent has further stated that it has been held in various judicial pronouncements that personal need of the landlord is to be seen as it subsisted on the date of filing of the petition. To counter this argument, Mr. Vikas Sagar has stated that a subsequent event can also be taken into consideration by the appellate Court.;