JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, dated March 11, 1988 by which he partly accepted the defendant-petitioner's application moved under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus. 2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Bhilwara in the year 1985 for the recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits & ejectment against the defendant-petitioner with the allegations, in short, that initially two shops were let out in the year 1966 on monthly rent of Rs. 26/-. In the year 1982, the defendant-petitioner further took one more shop and 'Nohra' on rent and agreed to pay Rs. 400/- per month for both the demised premises, i.e., three shops and one 'Nohra'. He has not paid rent since September, 1982. The defendant-petitioner averred in his written statement that there shops and 'Nohra' are in his tenancy and occupation since the year, 1966 on monthly rent of Rs. 26/-, he never agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. On the basis of the rent note dated 21.1.68 and the judgment and decree dated 25.4.78 passed in the suit filed by the plaintiff against Ganpat Lal in respect of the suit 'Nohra', the learned trial Court held that the defendant's version is not correct that three shops and one 'Nohra' are in his possession and tenancy since the beginning, the suit 'Nohra' was previously in the possession and tenancy of Ganpat Lal since April, 1975 and, accordingly, determined the provisional rent in respect of the three shops and one 'Nohra' at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month by its order dated July 13, 1987. In September, 1987, the defendant-petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for the amendment of his written-statement. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge partly allowed the application so far it sought amendment for incorporating the pleas for the fixation of standard rent. The amendment sought regarding the details of the demised premises was not allowed on the ground that the defendant wants to wriggle out from the admission made by him in his written statement. 3. The amendment sought regarding the details of the demised premises was not allowed on the ground that the defendant wants to wriggle out from the admission made by him in his written statement. 3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the learned trial Court has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in not allowing the amendment application in toto. He further contended that the amendment can be allowed for the purpose of withdrawing the admission made earlier and in fact no admission has been made by the defendant in his written-statement. He lastly contended that the amendment was sought for elaborating the pleadings. 4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner duly supported the order under revision. 5. There is no force in the revision petition. It is clear from a perusal of para 2 of the plaint and para No. 2 of the written-statement that the defendant admitted that three shops and one 'Nohra' are in his tenancy and possession. By the amendment sought, he wanted to incorporate the plea that only two shops were taken on rent in the year 1966 on monthly rent of Rs. 26/- and this position continues till today. By this amendment, he wanted to wriggle out from his admission that three shops and one 'Nohra' are in his tenancy and possession. It may be mentioned here that the trial Court determined the rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month in respect of the three shops and one 'Nohra' by its order dated July 13, 1987. An appeal against this order was filed by the defendant and it was rejected by this Court. It has been observed in M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Ladha Ram & Company, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 680, paras 9 & 10, as follows:- "9. 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 he written statement and substitute an entirely different and new case. 10. Ltd. v. M/s. Ladha Ram & Company, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 680, paras 9 & 10, as follows:- "9. 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 he written statement and substitute an entirely different and new case. 10. 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 admissions 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 trial Court."The learned trial Court has relied upon this decision of the Supreme Court while rejecting application for the amendment of the written statement on this point. In view of these facts, circumstances and authoritative observations, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in not allowing the amendment of written statement in this respect. 6. Consequently, the revision is dismissed with costs.Petition dismissed with costs. *******