IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2806 OF 2011 Between: Smt.C.Aruna Bai …Petitioner A n d Smt.N.Laxmi ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2806 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.06.2011 in I.A.No.113 of 2011 in R.C.No.269 of 2008, on the file of the I-Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the counter filed in the R.C by adding para 9, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed R.C.No.269 of 2009 against the petitioner for eviction on the ground of personal requirement and also unauthorized sub-lease. The petitioner herein filed a counter contesting the petition. During enquiry, the respondent was examined as P.W.1 and her son was examined as P.W.2. The petitioner herein was examined as R.W.1. When the matter was coming up for further evidence of the petitioner/tenant, she filed an application I.A.No.113 of 2011 seeking amendment of counter by adding para 9. The respondent/landlord filed a counter opposing the application. By the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition for amendment. 4. According to the tenant, subsequent to filing of the eviction petition, the respondent/landlord in January 2010 entered into an agreement of sale with one Sathi Yesu Babu offering to sell the schedule property for Rs.15 lakhs and also received an amount of Rs.5 lakhs as advance. She would further contend that as the respondent/landlord failed to execute a registered sale deed, Sathi Yesu Babu filed a criminal complaint in Cr.No.975 of 2011 against the respondent and also got issued a registered notice to her through an Advocate. Thus, according to the petitioner, the alleged personal requirement of the schedule premises by the respondent’s son P.W.2 is not true and the petition for eviction is filed mala fide. The respondent, on the other hand, would contend that she never executed any agreement of sale in favour of Sathi Yesu Babu and she does not know the said Yesu Babu at all. Even in the counter filed to the present application, she reiterated that the premises is required bona fide for personal occupation of her son P.W.2. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the respondent herein, the landlord, has entered into an agreement of sale with Sathi Yesu Babu as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to establish that any subsequent event has taken place that necessitated the proposed amendment. In view of the categorical denial of the alleged agreement by the respondent and the allegation by the petitioner that the respondent entered into an agreement of sale with Sathi Yesu Babu, remain baseless. There is no need or occasion for the proposed amendment of the counter. It is obvious that the present application is filed by the petitioner/tenant only with a view to protract the enquiry in the rent control case. The impugned order, dismissing the application does not, therefore, call for any interference. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st November, 2011 Lrkm.