The court's decision emphasized that hearing the application for framing additional issues and the main appeal on the same date would not prejudice the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral). - Heard through video conferencing.

2. The challenge in the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali).The impugned order under challenge reads as under:

"Ld. Counsel for appellant moved an application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC for framing additional issues. Copy supplied. Now for filing reply to the same to come up on 22.12.2021. Arguments on the application as well as on main appeal shall also be heard on the date fixed. "

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that vide impugned order dated 13.12.2021 the Appellate Authority has fixed the case for arguments on the application for framing additional issues as well as on the main appeal which would prejudice the petitioner.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The brief facts relevant to present lis are that the respondent- landlady filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the petitioner herein on the ground of arrears of rent as well as on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:

"1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for ejectment of the respondent from the demised shop? OPP

2. Whether the petitioner is not maintainable in the present shop? OPR

3. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR

4. Whether the petitioner has concealed the true and material facts from the Court? OPR

5. Relief."

6. The parties led their respective evidence. Specifically, the evidence was led on the ground of bona fide personal necessity by the respondent-landlady. Before the Rent Controller arguments were specifically addressed on the issue of bona fide personal necessity. Vide detailed order dated 04.01.2017 (Annexure P-1) the Rent Controller accepted the petition for ejectment of the petitioner herein on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the respondent-landlady for her husband and the petitioner herein was granted two months' time to vacate the demised premises and to hand over the vacant possession of the same. On 02.05.2017 the petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure P-2) against the order dated 04.01.2017 passed by the Rent Controller. On 08.05.2017 an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner by the Appellate Authority. After the appeal had been pending for more than four years, on 13.12.2021 the petitioner moved an application (Annexure P-3) under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC for framing of additional issues. The Appellate Authority vide the impugned order dated 13.12.2021 (Annexure P-4) directed that the matter be listed on 22.12.2021 for filing of reply and arguments on the application as well as on the main appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court. The petition for eviction was filed by the respondent-landlady in the year 2011 and the same came to be decided on 04.01.2017. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner which remains pending till date. From May 2017 till 13.12.2021 the petitioner took no steps to file any application for framing additional issues though the appeal was only fixed for arguments on several dates. On 23.09.2021 a new counsel put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and on 13.12.2021 the application (Annexure P-3) has been preferred. The Appellate Authority has fixed the case for arguments on the application for framing additional issues as well as on the main appeal. The counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out what prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the application and the main appeal are heard on the same date. I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 13.1