THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.Nos. 2796 and 2797 of 2010. COMMON ORDER: Both these revision petitions arise out of the common order dt. 15.6.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court (Appellate Authority) in I.A.Nos. 89 and 90 of 2010 in R.A.No. 127 of 2009 filed under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules and under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C respectively. The revision petitioner is the appellant before the learned Additional Chief Judge. The respondent filed R.C.No. 483 of 2008 seeking eviction of the appellant on the ground of bona fide requirement of petition schedule premises i.e. for the purpose of establishing Advocate Chamber for his son, who is a practising advocate. The learned Rent Controller accepted the contention of the respondent and ordered eviction of the appellant from the petition schedule premises. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the appellant filed R.A.No. 127 of 2009 before the Additional Chief Judge and while the said appeal was being heard, the appellant filed two interlocutory applications i.e. I.A.No. 89 of 2009 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC r/w Rule 11 (3) of the A.P. Buildings (L.R.&E) Rules seeking permission to adduce additional evidence relating to subsequent events and I.A.No. 90 of 2009 under Order V Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the counter in R.C.No. 483 of 2008 to bring on record the subsequent events, which are mentioned in the said petition. The learned Additional Chief Judge after making an enquiry into both the applications dismissed them on the ground that they were filed only to protract the litigation. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Chief Judge dismissing the said applications, the appellant filed the present revision petitions. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as landlord and tenant. I have heard the learned Counsel on either side. The landlord filed eviction petition against the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of establishing advocate chamber for his son who is a practising advocate. The learned Rent Controller accepted the plea of the landlord and ordered eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises. In the appeal filed against the order of eviction, the appellant filed the above said two interlocutory applications for amending the counter and also seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. The contention of the appellant is that in view of the subsequent events, there was no occasion for him to plead the new facts and therefore he filed two interlocutory applications. The landlord stoutly opposed the said petitions contending that they were filed only to protract the litigation and the plea sought to be taken is altogether new and inconsistent and therefore both the petitions cannot be allowed. The learned Additional Chief Judge upheld the contention of the landlord and dismissed the petitions. The point that arises for consideration is whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge in the above two interlocutory applications declining to grant the reliefs of amendment and adducing additional evidence. The subsequent events according to the tenant are that in fact the son of the landlord by name Abhisekh Bhutada established his own office in the mulgi bearing No. 15-8-499, Feelkhana, Hyderabad from the date of his enrolment and practising independently in the said mulgi. The tenant further stated in his application that the said Abhisekh Bhutada now discontinued his practice and has been working in a reputed private company and therefore the so-called bona fide requirement no longer exists. It was further stated that after filing the eviction petition, the landlord came into possession of two ground floor portions and also another portion out of which one of the portions has been let out to M/s Raghu Agencies and another portion has been occupied by his another son Anurag Bhutada for carrying business in Tea Powder and another portion has been occupied by his son Abhisekh Bhutada for carrying his part time chamber practice. The learned Additional Chief Judge noticed that before the Rent Controller, the landlord’s son was examined as Pw.2 and the landlord was examined as Pw.1 and they were subjected to lengthy cross- examination and the cross-examination also proceeded touching the present aspects. The learned Additional Chief Judge also noticed that RW.1 stated in his evidence that Pw.2 established his advocate office in the 2nd floor and it was also elicited in the cross-examination of Rw.1 that he had not pleaded the same in his counter and also did not mention in his chief examination and therefore the Rent Controller did not permit Rw.1 to adduce evidence on the said aspect in the absence of any such pleading in his counter. The learned Additional Chief Judge also noticed that Pws 1 and 2 were cross-examined about the availability of vacant mulgies at the time of trial before the Rent Controller and accordingly the learned Additional Chief Judge concluded that there is no material to show any subsequent events as contended by the tenant. The learned Additional Chief Judge also noticed that absolutely there is no material brought on record by the tenant showing that Pw.2 discontinued his advocate practice and secured a job in a private sector and that the petitions filed by the tenant do not throw any sort of light on the alleged subsequent events pleaded in the petitions. Holding as such, the learned Additional Chief Judge dismissed both the applications. The learned Counsel for the tenant relied on the decisions of the supreme Court in Hasmat Rai vs. Raghunath Prasad[1] and Adil Jamshed Frenchman vs. Sardar Dastur School Trust[2] and drew my attention to the ratio laid down in the said decisions which is to the effect that the appellate authority must take congnizance of the subsequent events showing that the landlord’s requirements have been met, and must mould the trial court’s decree accordingly and that if the documents sought to be produced by the tenant supports the plea of subsequent events, the petition filed under Order 41 Rule 27C.P.C. to adduce additional evidence shall be allowed more particularly when the said documents were not available during the course of trial before the trial court and if the court thinks that the documents were necessary for just and fair decision of the issue involved in the case. The learned Counsel for the appellant also relied on another decision in Chapala Chinnabbayi vs. Naralasetti Anusuyamma[3] wherein this Court held that even at the stage of second appeal the High Court can permit a party to adduce additional evidence in exceptional and compelling circumstances. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the landlord relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co., Ltd., vs. M/s Ladha Ram and Co.,[4] wherein it has been held that if the amendment sought to be made introduces entirely a different and new case and seeking to displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the defendant in the written statement, the application is liable to be rejected. He also relied on another decision in Revajeetu Builders vs. Narayanaswamy[5] wherein the Supreme Court held that the power to grant or refuse amendment must be exercised by the courts judicially with due care and caution. The basic test according to the Supreme Court is that where an amendment is necessary for effective adjudication of the case, the proposed amendment shall not cause prejudice or injustice to the opposite party and the court has to take into account whether the proposed amendment fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case. Both the counsel have cited the decisions governing the important aspect of amendment of pleadings provided under order V Rule 17 C.P.C. The decisions relied on by either side are not in conflict. They provide guidelines as to when and under what circumstances amendment can be allowed or refused. In the light of the above cited decisions, it is to be seen whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the amendment now sought is bona fide and such amendment is necessary to determine the crucial dispute between the parties and whether proposed amendment and additional evidence sought to be adduced introduces a new case or changes the nature and character of the case. As has been noticed already, Pws 1 and 2 have been cross-examined on the same aspect basing on which the proposed amendment was sought and the Rent Controller recorded the cross-examination and clearly held that the questions put to Pws 1 and 2 in the cross-examination cannot be taken into consideration since no such pleadings have been made by the tenant in his counter. Further, no material was placed before the learned Additional Chief Judge to establish prima facie that Pw.2 the son of the landlord, who is an advocate discontinued his practice and secured a job in a reputed private sector. Therefore, if the proposed amendment and the additional evidence petitions are allowed, it is nothing but permitting the tenant to fill up the latches to over-come the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller. Since Pws 1 and 2 were already cross-examined on the same aspects, it cannot be said that the facts relating to the proposed amendment are not at all within the knowledge of the tenant at the time when the case was filed. If such an amendment is allowed, it would cause prejudice to the rights of the landlord and it disturbs the findings recorded by the Rent Controller in favour of the landlord basing on the pleadings available at the time when the matter was pending before the Rent Controller. Therefore, I am of the considered view that these applications are devoid of any merit and they were filed only to protract the litigation. The learned Additional Chief Judge recorded proper reasons while dismissing the petitions and there are no valid grounds to upset the order under revision. In the result, the civil revision petitions are dismissed confirming the common order dt. 15.6.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in I.A.Nos. 89 and 90 of 2010 in R.A.No. 127 of 2009. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 12.11.2010. LR copy to be marked. B/o: KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.Nos. 2796 and 2797 of 2010. COMMON ORDER: DT. 12.11.2010. [1] (1981)3 Supreme Court Cases 103. [2] AIR 2005 SC 996. [3] AIR 2006 AP 142. [4] AIR 1977 SC 680(1). [5] (2009) 10 SCC 84.