Abhinava Upadhya, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Kshitij Shailendra, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Jain, senior advocate assisted by Sri Saurabh Jain, Counsel for the respondents. By means of the present revision, the applicant who is a tenant in a suit filed by the landlord for eviction and arrears of rent being SCC suit No. 36 of 2011 has challenged the order allowing amendment. In the said suit after filing of the written statement, the landlord plaintiffs have filed an amendment application. The said amendment application has been allowed against which the present revision has been filed alleging that instead of filing a replica in view of the amendment allowed in the written statement, amendment has been sought in the plaint itself which cannot be permitted. The suit is for eviction and arrears of rent. By the aforesaid amendment, it cannot be said that the nature of the suit will change. It will continue to be a suit for eviction and arrears of rent. However, certain other pleadings have been brought on record. The petitioner will have opportunity to rebut the same by filing the additional written statement. From the order impugned it appears that the Court has permitted the same to the revisionist. In this view of the matter, I do not see any prejudice being caused to the revisionist. He will have ample opportunity to rebut the claim set up by the plaintiff by way of amendment.
(2.) THE revision is accordingly dismissed.;