JUDGMENT R. S. Pathak, C. J.—This is a tenants revision petition against an order of the Controller, Simla, refusing amendment of his reply to an ejectment petition. 2. The respondent, as landlord, filed a petition under Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for the ejectment of the petitioner, who was its tenant in the accommodation in question. The petition was filed as long ago as 1966, and for one reason or another it remained pending. Finally, when a date was fixed for arguments in the case, an application was made by the tenant for amendment of his reply filed to the ejectment petition. The proposed amendment was to the effect that the tenant was carrying on medical practice in Homoeopathy from August 1, 1975 and the building now fell within the expression "Scheduled building", and that, therefore, the tenant could not be ejected. The amendment application was resisted by the landlord on the ground that if it was allowed it would alter the very nature of the case and that the tenant was not entitled to convert the use of the premises Jet out to him. The amendment application has been rejected by the Controller by his order dated April 4, 1977. The Controller has taken the view that the amendment is belated and not made bona fide and if allowed it would necessitate the reopening of the entire proceeding because a new line of defence would have been introduced. 3. In this revision petition, it is urged by learned counsel for the tenant that the order of the Controller is erroneous and that the amendment application should have been allowed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it seems to me that the Controller has erred. The case which the tenant wishes to introduce is that he started regular medical practice in Homoeopathy from August 1, 1975 after his retirement from Government service a few months earlier, and that, therefore, the building must be regarded as a "scheduled building". An amendment application was first moved on November 10, 1975. But it appears that the application was rejected on April 3, 1976 op the ground that it was not in accordance with the rules. A second application was made on April 30, 1976. It is out of that application that the present proceedings arise. An amendment application was first moved on November 10, 1975. But it appears that the application was rejected on April 3, 1976 op the ground that it was not in accordance with the rules. A second application was made on April 30, 1976. It is out of that application that the present proceedings arise. It is apparent that the tenant has sought the amendment with diligence He commenced regular medical practice in Homoeopathy on August 1, 1975 and could not have applied for amendment before that date. The amendment application cannot be described as belated. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the landlord that if the amendment is permitted it could result in rendering the ejectment petition infructuous. I am unable to agree. The contention of the landlord is that the user of the premises by the tenant for the purpose of carrying on medical practice in Homoeopathy amounts to a conversion, without the written consent of the landlord, of the use for which the accommodation was originally leased. If/that is so, it will be open to the landlord to apply for amendment of the ejectment petition. In any event, I cannot see why a fact which has come into existence subsequently cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining whether the ejectment petition should be allowed. The Controller has observed that the amendment application has not been made bona fide. The observation is promoted by his conclusion that it is a belated application. No doubt the ejectment petition has been pending since 1965, but if an amendment is necessitated by reason of circumstances coming into existence even on the eve of the disposal of the ejectment petition, there is good reason for entertaining the amendment application. 5. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the landlord that rent has not been paid by the tenant since September 1, 1966. Shri K. D. Sud, learned counsel for the tenant, states that the tenant undertakes to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the landlord within 15 days from today, which amount should be adjusted towards the arrears of rent payable by the tenant to the landlord. The undertaking is accepted. 6. In all the aforesaid circumstances, I am of opinion that this revision petition should be allowed. 7. 3,000/- to the landlord within 15 days from today, which amount should be adjusted towards the arrears of rent payable by the tenant to the landlord. The undertaking is accepted. 6. In all the aforesaid circumstances, I am of opinion that this revision petition should be allowed. 7. The revision petition is allowed, the order of the Controller dated April 4, 1977 is set aside and the amendment application filed by the tenant is allowed. The parties will appear before the Controller on December 5, 1977 for further proceedings in the case. As the case is an old one, the Controller will take steps to dispose it of expeditiously. There is no order as to costs.