Y. K. Sabharwal ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against theorder made by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, on 27-7-1992 whereby the application of the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17, Code ofcivil Procedure as well as application under Order 13 Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code wasdismissed. With a view to appreciate the nature of the amendment soughtfor the petitioner it would by useful to briefly notice the facts of the case asunder :- ( 2 ) EVICTION proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondent resulted in an order of eviction being passed against the respondent andin favour of the petitioner under Section 19 (1) (f) of the Delhi Rent Controlact. Under Clause (f) an order of recovery of possession of the premises canbe made if the premises have become unsafe or unfit for human habitation andarc required bona fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs which cannotbe carried out without the premises being vacated. The litigation under therent Act went upto Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by order dated 3/05/1990 directed that the petitioner shall complete the reconstruction ofthe shop as per the plan within a period of three months from the date ofthe order and handover the same to the respondent herein within a monththereafter. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of that order of thesupreme Court he reconstructed the entire premises No. 820, Chowk Baoli,pahar Ganj, New Delhi, and thereafter he offered the new tenancy of theshop to defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 10,000. 00. The offer is stated tohave been given by written notice delivered to the defendant. According toplaint, defendant took possesssion on 24/08/1990 and he became atenant of the newly constructed premises at the rent of Rs. 10,000. 00 permonth. Further, the petitioner s case is that the respondent/defendant didnot pay the rent at the rate of Rs. IU,000. 00 per month since 24/08/1990 and, therefore, the suit for recovery of rent with interest was filed. ( 3 ) THE suit is being contested by the respondent/defendant onvarious grounds, one of it being that no new tenancy as claimed by theplaintiff came into existence after the repairs made by the plaintiff. According to defendant, the rate of rent continues to be Rs. 42. 50 and there was nooccasion for surrender of the first tenancy or creation of the new freshtenancy. According to defendant, the rate of rent continues to be Rs. 42. 50 and there was nooccasion for surrender of the first tenancy or creation of the new freshtenancy. The defendant has denied the rate of rent of Rs. 10,000. 00 permonth. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff the defendant gave his consent byconduct to take the premises on rent of Rs. 10. 000. 00 per month The amendment sought for in the plaint now is to introduce a plea stated to be analternate plea to the effect that the value of the reconstructed shop on thedate of the commencement of reconstruction, in June 1990 and on its completion before delivery of possession to defendant on 24/08/1990 wasrs. 5,62,000. 00 and the reasonable return on the said amount comes tors. 10. 000. 00 per month on the market rate of interest. In short, the plaintiffwants to introduce a plea that in case the plaintiff is unable to prove that thedefendant by conduct agreed to pay Rs. 10,000. 00 per month as rent for theshop, than Rs. 10,000. 00 be fixed as reasonable amount of rent, keeping inview the amounts spent on reconstruction and reasonable return on thatamount. ( 5 ) THE/trial Court has come to the conclusion that the proposedamendment would totally change the nature of the suit inasmuch as theplaintiff had come to the Court with a specific plea regarding creation oftenancy on monthly rent of Rs. 10,000. 00and now he wants to set up theplea that amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 should be considered as reasonable on thebasis of the cost of construction etc. ( 6 ) APART from the ground as to the change of the nature of the suit, inmy opinion, the amendment sought for is not necessary for deciding the realcontroversy between the parties, It is not for the Civil Court to determine asto what would be the reasonable rate of rent and thus the question as towhat amount was spent on reconstruction would be wholly unnecessary. Imay also refer to letter dated 24/08/1990 written by Mr. S. P. Pandey,advocate, to Counsel for the respondent who was representing him in thesupreme Court, stating that in obedience to the directions of the Supremecourt, bunch of the keys of the shop in question were being delivered tothe respondent. That letter does not make reference to any rent ofrs. 10,000. 00 per month. S. P. Pandey,advocate, to Counsel for the respondent who was representing him in thesupreme Court, stating that in obedience to the directions of the Supremecourt, bunch of the keys of the shop in question were being delivered tothe respondent. That letter does not make reference to any rent ofrs. 10,000. 00 per month. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.