J. V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed by the tenant -petitioner against the order of the Rent Controller, who disallowed the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner.
(2.) A petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for ejectment of the tenant petitioner, is pending since July, 1974. During the pendency of the petition for ejectment, the tenant petitioner made an application on 17th Feb., 1979, on 6th Sept., 1978, on the instigation of the landlady, her husband and sous have forcibly fallen a part of the hind portion of the shop adjacent to their house, and, therefore, he may be allowed to amend his written statement as such The learned Rent Controller has passed a very detailed order giving the previous conduct of the petitioner and haw observed that "the amendment sought for is, thus uncalled for and appears to have been sought for to protract the proceedings, which have come at the stage of final arguments."
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no reason to interfere with this order under Sec. 15(5) of the Act. This ground has already been taken by the petitioner in the written statement originally filed by him. It is strange that the application filed by the landlady. In the year 1974 has been delayed for one person or the other by the conduct of the tenant-petitioner Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs Toe parties through their counsel have been directed to appear before the Rent Controller, Nabba, on 15th Dec., 1979. Revision dismissed.;