JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiff is the Petitioner against an order allowing the amendment of the written statement. Normally, allowing the amendment of pleading should not be interfered with. In this case, however, the facts are peculiar. 2. Plaintiff's suit is one for eviction of the Defendant and for realisation of the arrear of rent in respect of a house in Mouza-Lamtibahal. Defendant in his written statement stated: In view of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Defendant will continue in the premises so long he will be paying the rent regularly the relationship of the Plaintiff and Defendant is land-lord and tenant and not lessor and lessee. With the aforesaid assertion continuing in the written statement Defendant seeks to amend the written statement by adding the following: 4(a) That Kumar Nayanarayan Singh Deo son of late Hrusikesh Singh Deo of Rampur, P.O. Brajarajnagar. District-Sambalpur having determined the lease hold on which the suit house stands, the Plaintiff has no right to evict the Defendant therefrom. When a tenant wants to challenge the title of his landlord, the same can be permitted only after severing the relationship of landlord and tenant by restoring possession to the admitted landlord. This has been so held in the decisions reported in Sri Sri Sri Udayapratap Singh Deo and Ors. v. Krushna Padhano and Anr., Laxminarayan Gupta v. Durgadevi Thakurani, Krupasindhu. Routrai and Anr. v. Purna Chandra Misra and Ors., and Surabali Ram and Anr. v. Dhani Ram and Ors. In this case the amendment of the written statement cannot be allowed since as per the decision of this Court, such a plea would not be available to be raised by a tenant without assertion that he has delivered possession to the Plaintiff. The amendment is not of a formal nature. It is not merely an inconsistent plea in the written statement. It is directly against Section 116 of the Evidence Act. This aspect of the question was not considered by the trial court. The impugned order suffers from exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity and accordingly, the same cannot be sustained. 3. In the result, the Civil Revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed