THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No.2813 of 2010 ORDER: 1. Challenging the order dated 04.05.2010 in I.A.No. 90 of 2010 in R.C.No. 228 of 2006 passed by the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner. 2. The above interlocutory application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to permit the petitioner to amend the claim portion by adding Para 5 (a) and the same was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the application is filed only to fill up the lacunae. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of giving opportunity to the respondent, there is no representation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the premises in question was let out to the respondents for the purpose of carrying on hotel business, but they have sublet the premises to the third parties after filing of rent control case. Hence, the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 5. The object of Rule 17 Order VI C.P.C. is that the Court should try the merits of the case that comes before it and should consequently allow the amendment that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to other side. The Court may, however, take notice of subsequent events, which came to the knowledge of petitioner after filing of rent control case to shorten litigation or to safeguard the rights of both the parties. Proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI as inserted by the Code Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 restricts and curtails power of the Court to allow amendment in pleadings by enacting that no application for amendment should be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter for amendment now sought for before the commencement of the trial. In this case trial has already commenced. A specific plea has been taken in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to the effect that during the pendency of the case for eviction, it came to the knowledge of petitioner that the respondents are not carrying on hotel business in the petition schedule premises, but instead they have sublet the entire premises to the third parties and therefore, the petitioner prays to allow the amendment petition. The proposed amendment is not within the knowledge of the petitioner. After filing of the rent control case, it seems, the respondents have sublet the premises to the third parties. Since, an act of subletting had taken place after filing of the petition for eviction, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition in the interest of justice. 6. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. K.C.BHANU,J Dt. 22.03.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No.2813 of 2010 Dt. 22.03.2011