- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 03. 12. 2008 by which the application submitted by the defendant-tenant-petitioner for amendment of the written statement on 01. 12. 2008 when the case was ripe for final hearing has been rejected. By the said application, the defendant sought to amend the written statement and bring on record the fact that the plaintiff-landlord has constructed two shops at his residential house and, therefore, the ground for personal bonafide necessity does not subsist.
(3.) A reply was filed by the plaintiff to the said application and the averments made in the application for amendment have been denied and it has been denied that the plaintiff-landlord has constructed two shop at the residential house, as alleged.;