JUDGMENT H. S. Thakur, J.—-In this revision petition the petitioner who was a respondent in the petition before the Rent Controller, has challenged the order of Kent Controller, Simla, rejecting his application for amendment of the reply filed by him, 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the present respondent filed a petition for the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in his occupation during the month of February, 1976. The reply to the petition was filed by the present petitioner and in the reply he admitted tine relationship of land lady and tenant between the parties. The respondent closed her evidence and the case was fixed for 13th December, 1978 for the evidence of the present petitioner. Instead of leading evidence, the petitioner filed an application for the amendment of the reply to the petition, on that day. 3. The present respondent resisted the application c n various grounds. It was contended by the respondent that the relationship of landlady and tenant having been admitted by the present petitioner he could not resale from such an admission by taking the pleas to the contrary by way of amendment. It was also contended that the present petitioner had been paying the rent to the respondent and the other alleged co-owners of the part of the property never objected to the payment of rent to the respondent. According to the respondent it was a device to prolong the proceedings and to defeat the purpose of the petition filed by the respondent. 4. The Rent Controller after hearing the parties made an order dismissing the application of the present petitioner on 2nd January, 1979. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the tanant, who is a petitioner in this revision petition, has filed this application in this court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The Rent Controller in his order dismissing the application of the petitioner has observed as follows:— "The case was fixed for the evidence of the respondent on 13-12-78 on which date the present application was filed. The petitioner was examined on 6th May 1978 and there is no suggestion to the petitioner with respect to the pleas now intended to be raised. The respondent has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant with respect to the premises in question. The petitioner was examined on 6th May 1978 and there is no suggestion to the petitioner with respect to the pleas now intended to be raised. The respondent has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant with respect to the premises in question. It is not the case of the respondent that the proposed amendment is being sought in view of the subsequent events having occurred after filing the petition. The respondent is yet to adduce his evidence and has right to rebut the evidence of the petitioner that she requires the premises in question bona fide for her use and occupation and can adduce evidence without seeking proposed amendment of paras 18 (a) 1 and para 19." 7. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner for the amendment of the reply indicates that on sufficient grounds have been given by him for filing the application at such a belated stage. The only reason given for the same is that certain facts which are very material and necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the case were inadvertently due to bona fide mistake not impleaded, in the reply that has been filed by the petitioner. It is further contended that without incorporating those facts it is not possible for the petitioner to effectively defend the petition and that it may not be possible for the tribunal to effectively adjudicate upon the same. As observed by the Rent Controller, it is not the case of the petitioner that the amendment was necessitated by subsequent events. Further it is also not the case of the petitioner that he even came to know about these facts later on. No doubt, in the interest of justice amendment of a pleading can be allowed at any stage but sufficient reasons have to be indicated for allowing such an amendment. An amendment cannot be allowed in a mechanical manner. At the same time, for all interts and purposes, the object of the amendment appears to be the plea that the respondent is not the only landlady of the entire premises but some portion of the premises is owned by other persons. On this account, according to the petitioner, the respondent was not competent to file a petition for his eviction. The proposition of law is well settled that a landlord may not necessarily be the owner of the premises. On this account, according to the petitioner, the respondent was not competent to file a petition for his eviction. The proposition of law is well settled that a landlord may not necessarily be the owner of the premises. Moreover, in the instant case in the reply tiled by the petitioner, he has admitted the relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to certain cases in support of the proposition that the view taken by the Rent Controller was proper. It is not necessary to refer to all those cases but I may refer to some of them. In the case M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another v. M/s. Ladha Ram & Co.. AIR 1977 SC 6oO, the Supreme Court taking into consideration the facts of that case observed as follows:— "The decision of the trial court is correct. The defendants cannot be allowed to change completely the case made in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the written statement and substitute an entirely different and new case. It is true that inconsistent pleas can be made in pleadings but the effect of substitution of paragraphs 25 and 26 is not making inconsistent and alternative pleadings but it is seeking to displace the plaintiff completely from the admission made by the defendants in the written statement. If such amendments are allowed the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admission from the defendants. The High Court rightly rejected the application for amendment and agreed with the trial court." Similarly the Supreme Court in case Haji Mohammed Ishaq WJ. S. K. Mohammed and others v. Mohamed Iqbal and Mohamed AH & Co. AIR 197tf SC 1W> also observed as follows: "The amendment of the written statement sought was on such facts which, if permitted to be introduced by way of amendment, would have completely changed the nature of their original defence. It would have brought about an entirely new plea which was never taken up either at the time cf the dealings between the parties or in the original pleadings." 9. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage and even inconsistent pleas can be taken by a party. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage and even inconsistent pleas can be taken by a party. There is no dispute about this proposition but each case has to be decided on its facts. Taking into consideration the facts of the case I am of the view that the petitioner by seeking amendment wants to displace the respondent from the admission by him in his reply. At the same time the Rent Controller has even allowed the petitioner to produce evidence in rebuttal to prove that the claim of the respondent requiring the eviction of the petitioner for bona fide requirement of the premises is not justified. The petitioner has also been allowed to produce evidence without seeking proposed amendment of paras 18 (a) 1 and 19. 10. For the foregoing facts and circumstances and bearing in mind the principles of law settled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, I have no other alternative but to reject this revision petition. 11. The revision petition is accordingly rejected, but keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. Revision rejected.-