HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 845 of 2007 Date: 11.2.2010 Between: Iffat Fatima Petitioner And Zaitoon Bee and others. ... Respondents. HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 845 of 2007 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 2.12.2007 of the learned II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in I.A. No. 423 of 2006 in R.C. No. 278 of 2005. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the land lady. The respondent filed the eviction petition being R.C. No. 278 of 2005 before the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant. In that R.C., she filed I.A. No. 423 of 2005 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to amend the eviction petition by adding the following paras to para 4 of the petition. “4(a): The petitioner submits that after Dr. Mohammed Ali vacated his possession from the demised shop, the respondent has sub-letted the same to Sri Irfan Qadeer, Physiotherapist, who is running Physiotherapist Centre therein for giving treatment for sports injury, Health fitness, frozen shoulder and other type of arthritis etc. By doing so the respondent has parted with complete possession of the demised shop exclusively in favour of Irfan Qadeer who has altered the front elevation of the shop, fixed plywood partition to the outer portion and also fixed a door in it and put up his sign board also. The said Irfan Qadeer is occupying the shop as sub-tenant and is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. Thus the respondent has sub-letted the demised shop without the knowledge, consent and written permission of the petitioner for monetary gains. The above act of the respondent is against the terms of tenancy therefore the respondent is liable to be evicted therefrom on this ground. 4(b) As per the terms of tenancy the respondent is required to pay Municipal Tax of the demised shop @ Rs. 92/- per month. The respondent is due the said tax from August 2005 to October, 2006 for 15 months @ Rs.92/- per month which comes to Rs. 1380/- and she is liable to pay the same. I have filed relevant documents along with the petition.” In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., the respondent has stated that the petitioner is a house hold lady and in the demised shop, clinical activity is being carried on by Dr. Mohammed Ali and others with the active connivance and knowledge of the petitioner and the petitioner has not obtained any permission from the respondent for allowing Dr. Mohd. Ali and others to carry on such activity. While opposing the allegations, the petitioner filed her counter affidavit. She also denied the allegation that Dr. Mahmood Ali has vacated the shop and she has sub-let the same to one Irfan Qadeer Physiotherapist for running clinical activity and he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the shop. She also denied the allegation that she is due and liable to pay property tax at Rs.92//- per month and the total liability of Rs. 1380/-. She further stated that the proposed amendment is only an after thought of the respondent and the amendment is nothing but a departure from the original pleadings, which cannot be permitted. The learned Rent Controller on a perusal of the petition and the counter averments and upon hearing both the counsel, while relying on certain decisions of this Court as well as of the Apex Court, has allowed the said application. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present revision. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under revision. The very purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. is to allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. Though amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, amendments can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings. Admittedly, in the instant case, the trial has not yet commenced. In view of the fact that the respondent is seeking amendment of the pleadings on the ground of sub-letting, the learned Rent Controller was justified in allowing the amendment application. Hence, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order under revision. The revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, as the main R.C itself is ripe for hearing, the learned Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ____________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 11th February, 2010 pnb