JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - A petition under Section 13(B) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the Act) filed for eviction of the tenant on 17.7.2012 by the petitioner-landlord is pending adjudication before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, which is at the initial stage. 2. An application for amendment of the petition to introduce one para which allegedly had been wrongly omitted to be mentioned in the petition, already preferred, is sought to be introduced now. The same reads as under: “That the petitioner does not own or possess any commercial property in the Urban Area of Chandigarh, or for that matter anywhere in the country, and that he has not voluntarily vacated the same.” 3. Such application moved by the petitioner-landlord had met tough contest from the respondents-tenants and consequently, the said application of the petitioner-landlord was dismissed vide impugned order (Annexure P-3). 4. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner-landlord has sought indulgence of this Court, claiming, that the Rent Controller did not appreciate the facts and circumstances having bearing on merits of the application for amendment and wrongly passed the impugned order causing great prejudice to the cause of the petitioner who in addition to being a Non- Resident Indian (NRI) is also a senior citizen. 5. Stand of the respondents, on the other hand, is that the application for amendment is vague and fluid and thus, being of no consequence was rightly rejected. 6. Hearing has been provided. 7. Merits of the plea sought to be introduced by way of amendment in the pleadings are not to be judged at the time of deciding such application for amendment of the pleadings. Even probative value of the averments sought to be introduced in the petition, is not to be evaluated at this juncture. It has not been denied by the counsel for the respondents that amendments sought for in the petition by way of proposed amendment therein is of vital importance and thus, without introduction of such pleas in the petition, it does not reflect entire stand of the landlord. 8. Looking from another angle, the petition is at an initial stage. Evidence has yet not started. Consequently, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents by way of addition of proposed amendment in the petition. 9. Sequelly, there is merit in the revision petition. 8. Looking from another angle, the petition is at an initial stage. Evidence has yet not started. Consequently, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents by way of addition of proposed amendment in the petition. 9. Sequelly, there is merit in the revision petition. Accepting the same and reversing the impugned order, the application for amendment of the petition is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the respondents-tenants. 10. Nothing observed hereinabove shall have any bearing on merits of the case pending before the Rent Controller. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————