HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 27.09.2004 passed by the learned Rent Controller whereby the amendment sought by the petitioner in the written statement was declined. The respondent-landlord has sought eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent on the basis of rent note dated 15.05.1995. The petitioner filed written statement on 3.3.2000 denying the execution of the said rent note. By virtue of the amendment, the petitioner herein wants to plead that the said rent note has, in fact, been tampered with by the landlord and, therefore, the petitioner wants to take the plea to that effect. The said application has been denied for the reason that evidence has already been led by the parties and withdrawal of admission regarding the premises under tenancy will defeat the ends of justice.
(2.) While issuing notice of motion on 27.01.2005, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the amendment is necessitated on account of the rent note produced by the landlord containing interpolated clause 7. However, none has come forward to appear on behalf of the respondent and, therefore, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has found that the order declining amendment in written statement is not sustainable in law.
(3.) The amendment sought is based upon rent note produced by the landlord wherein clause 7 is alleged to have been interpolated subsequently. Whether there is interpolation in the rent note is a question of fact which can only be decided after an opportunity is granted to amend the written statement by taking such plea. Mere fact that some evidence has been recorded is not sufficient reason to decline the amendment in the written statement. Since permission to amend the written statement has been sought after the petitioner has led some evidence, it will be appropriate if the petitioner is permitted to amend the written statement subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs.;