JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J.

Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 16.11.2022 whereby the application filed by the petitioner/tenant under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement has been dismissed by the appellate authority, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.

2. Counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the respondents filed one false rent petition against the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in question. Said ejectment petition was contested by the petitioner but was decided in favour of the respondents by the Court of Rent Controller, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide order dated 13.9.2019 and only respondent No.1-Harleen Kaur appeared in the witness box out of both the respondents during the said proceedings before the learned Rent Controller; that the appellant preferred appeal against the said order of eviction and the same is pending before the concerned appellate authority and during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant came to know that both the respondents have effected partition and as per said partition, demised premises has fallen to the share of respondent No.2-Sharanjeet Kaur whereas respondent No.1- Harleen Kaur and her husband have received cash amount in lieu of their share in the demised premises and as such, respondent No.2 has become exclusive owner of the entire building and further, respondent No.2 has entered into an agreement to sell the said building with one Anil Lamba; that all the aforesaid subsequent events are to be brought to the notice of the appellate authority and for that purpose, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement but the same has been declined by the appellate authority vide impugned order dated 16.11.2022.

3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is a settled law that the Court could take note of the subsequent events and it would be open to the tenant to point out such events and the Court including the appellate authority has to examine and evaluate the same. In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Hasmat Rai and another v. Raghunath Prasad (1981) 3 SCC 103. He further submits that the aforesaid subsequent events of fact which have a material bearing on the present case are required to be taken on record by the appellate authority by way of amendment in the written statement. So, prayer is made that the present petition be allowed.

4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paperbook.

5. Admittedly, the rent petition filed by both the respondents against the petitioner was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground of personal necessity and out of both the respondents, only respondent No.1-Harleen Kaur appeared in the witness box to prove the factum of personal necessity.

6. The appellant being aggrieved by the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller has filed appeal which is pending before the appellate authority concerned and the said appeal is pending since 2019 and during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC to bring to the notice of the Court certain subsequent events having bearing on the case.

7. As per the appellant, during the pendency of the appeal, he came to know that the respondents partitioned their properties including the shop in question and as per said partition, demised premises has come to the share of respondent No.2 while in lieu of her share, respondent No.1 and her husband had t