THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3537 OF 2010 DATED:01.04.2011 Between: R.Manik Rao. .... PETITIONER And Mohd.Saleem. .... RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 23.07.2010, in I.A.No.214 of 2010 in R.C.No.491 of 2006 on the file learned III Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-landlord under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC for amendment of the petition in R.C.No.491 of 2005, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein filed R.C.No.491 of 2006 for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the petition schedule premises on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal occupation. Respondent-tenant filed a counter opposing the petition and denying the petitioner’s claim of bona fide requirement. It is stated that the recording of evidence during the enquiry has been completed and the matter has reached the stage of arguments. While so, petitioner filed I.A.No.214 of 2010 seeking amendment of the petition by adding the pleading to the effect that: “the petitioner has vacated the premises No.2-1-563, Nallakunta, Hyderabad and handed over the possession to its owner and settled the matter on 01.08.2009”. According to the petitioner, he was doing business in rented premises bearing No.2-1-563, Nallakunta, Hyderabad and that subsequently, on 01.08.2009 he vacated the same and handed over the possession to the landlord. The very plea of the petitioner in the main R.C. is that except the schedule premises he has no other premises for doing business and that he was doing business in a rented premises and therefore he requires the schedule premises for personal occupation for doing business. According to the petitioner, he has vacated the said premises subsequent to filing of the petition and handed over the same to the landlord on 01.08.2009. He therefore seeks to amend the petition by incorporating the said aspect also by way of elaborating the original plea of bona fide requirement. 4. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that P.W.2 has stated in his chief-affidavit about vacating the premises bearing Door No.2-1-463. The proposed amendment does not therefore introduce any new case nor does it alter the character of the petition and it does not also bring out any additional ground for seeking the eviction. What all the petitioner seeks by way of the proposed amendment is only to alter his original plea of bona fide requirement for personal occupation by bringing on record the factum that the rented premises he was occupying has since been vacated and handed over to its landlord on 01.08.2009. The proposed amendment does not in any way cause any prejudice to the respondent-tenant. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that even according to the petitioner, he has vacated the other premises in August, 2009 and the present application has been filed about eight months thereafter when the matter was at the stage of arguments. He would contend that subsequent to amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the pleading after the trial has been completed. In that connection, he relies upon a decision of the apex Court in SALEM ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION, TAMIL NADU v. UNION OF INDIA,[1]. 6. Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, after the amendment, no doubt states that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced. The same proviso however gives room for amendment if the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. 7. In the present case, the trial has commenced much prior to 01.08.2009 and by the date of commencement of the trial, petitioner was still occupying the rented premises bearing Door No.2-1-463 and it is only subsequently on 01.08.2009 that he vacated the same. The event sought to be brought on record by way of amendment was simply not in existence by the date of commencement of the enquiry and it is only a subsequent event that occurred on 01.08.2009. The question of the petitioner not raising the matter before the commencement of the enquiry and therefore lacking in due diligence does not therefore arise in the present case. The principle laid down in the decision cited is thus not applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. In the circumstances, inasmuch as the proposed amendment is only to the effect of bringing on record the subsequent event of the petitioner vacating the rented premises on 01.08.2009, which is only by way of elaboration of the original plea of bona fide requirement for personal occupation and the proposed amendment not causing any prejudice to the respondent and not in any way altering the nature or character of the main petition, it is held that in the interest of justice the proposed amendment needs to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. It is needless to state that the respondent-tenant would be at liberty to file additional counter, if any, he proposes to file and the learned Rent Controller shall give opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence, if any, consequent to the amendment. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. 9. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st April, 2011. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within one week. B/o Tsy [1] AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 3353 (1)