Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed against order dated 21.11.2002, vide which, amendment in application for ejectment, filed by the respondents, was allowed by the appellate Court below, in a pending appeal. 2. When notice of motion was issued in this revision petition on 9.12.2002, ,only passing of final order by the Court below was stayed. Thereafter, revision petition was admitted on 14.10.2004 and interim order passed, on earlier date, was ordered to continue till further orders, 3. During arguments, it has been admitted by counsel for both the parties that after passing of order, under challenge, application for ejectment, was amended, reply was filed by the petitioner, matter was remitted to the Rent Controller, back to send a report on the basis of amended pleadings of the parties and as on today, both the parties have completed their evidence before Court below. 4. It is apparent from the records that initially, predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mehar Chand, filed an application for ejectment, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , against the petitioner and respondent No. 3. In that application, ejectment was sought on the following grounds:- (a) Non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1.4.1996. (b) That the property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. (c) On the ground of sub-letting some part of the property, in dispute, to respondent No. 3. (d) That the land-owner requires the property, for his own use. 5. Rent Controller, ordered ejectment, of the petitioner on the ground that the property had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It was further held that tender of rent was valid and further that the landlord has failed to prove sub-letting of any portion of the property, in dispute, to respondent No. 3. Ground of personal necessity of the lard-owner did not find favour with the Rent Controller. Against order of ejectment, petitioner went in appeal. During pendency of appeal, Mehar Chand, land-owner died and respondent Nos. l and 2 were brought on record as his legal representatives. It is necessary to mention here that the landlord also filed cross-objections, in appeal filed by the petitioner, regarding finding adverse to him given by the Rent Controller. When respondent Nos. During pendency of appeal, Mehar Chand, land-owner died and respondent Nos. l and 2 were brought on record as his legal representatives. It is necessary to mention here that the landlord also filed cross-objections, in appeal filed by the petitioner, regarding finding adverse to him given by the Rent Controller. When respondent Nos. l and 2 come on record, they moved application for amendment with a prayer that in view of the changed circumstances, they be allowed to incorporate ground of personal necessity of the land-owners, for claiming ejectment of the petitioner. It was their case that one of the respondents was a qualified doctor. He has not joined service and he intended to re-construct the premises, in dispute and thereafter, establish his clinic therein. That application was allowed by the appellate Court below. Hence, this revision petition. 6. This Court feels that the order passed by the Court below is perfectly justified. 7. Argument of Shri Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, that once on the ground of personal necessity, relief was declined to the original land-owner, his legal representatives are not entitled to incorporate the same ground again and seek ejectment of the petitioner, is devoid of any force and is liable to be ejected. It is apparent from the record that in original application for ejectment, moved by Mehar Chand, predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it was stated by him that he requires the property, in dispute, for his own personal use. That prayer was not granted by the Rent Controller on the ground that he was not physically fit to run the business, as was prayed. 8. This Court feels that respondent Nos. l and 2, have an independent right to plead that they now need the premises, in dispute, for their own personal necessity. As per law, even they can file fresh application in this regard. Under these circumstances, this Court feels that with a view to avoid any further multiplicity of litigation, order, vide which, amendment was allowed in favour of respondent Nos. l and 2, requires to be maintained. 9. Under similar circumstances, their Lordships of Hon ble Supreme Court in Gurdav Singh v. Surjit Kumar alias Jit and Anr. (1996-3)114 P.L.R. 326 (S.C.), at lowed the legal representatives of deceased to amend ejectment application when the matter was pending in the Hon ble Supreme Court. 10. l and 2, requires to be maintained. 9. Under similar circumstances, their Lordships of Hon ble Supreme Court in Gurdav Singh v. Surjit Kumar alias Jit and Anr. (1996-3)114 P.L.R. 326 (S.C.), at lowed the legal representatives of deceased to amend ejectment application when the matter was pending in the Hon ble Supreme Court. 10. In view of ratio of judgment, referred to above and facts of this case, present revision petition is dismissed.