SUDHIR NARAIN, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22-10-1994 passed by Additional Judge, Small Causes, Agra-respondent No. 2 allowing the application for amendment of the plaint filed by respondent No. 3 and the order dated 3-2-1996 passed by respondent No. 1 affirming the said order in revision. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 3 filed JSCC Suit No. 616 of 1981 against petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages on the ground that the petitioner was tenant of the premises in question. He committed default in payment of arrears of rent in spite of service of notice and also made material alteration in the premises in question as such he was liable for eviction. 3. Petitioner contested the suit. He denied the allegation of the plaintiff-respon dent. The trial court dismissed the suit on 18-2- 1996. Respondent No. 3 filed rent control revision No. 8 of 1986. During the pendency of the revision, the defendant-petitioner filed application for amendment of his written statement. He sought to amend his written statement to take plea that the suit was bad for partial ejectment. His application for amendment of written statement has been allowed. 4. The revisional court framed additional issue "whether the suit was not maintainable on the ground of partial ejectment. The issue was remitted to the Judge Small Causes Court. After the issue was remitted to the trial court, the case was taken up by the Judge Small Causes Court. Plaintiff-respondent filed an application for amendment of his plaint. In the plaint he sought amendment regarding descrip tion of the property. He made prayer to amend the plaint which runs as under: " (A) That at the foot of the plaint in the details of the premises in suit, first and second line be deleted and it be substituted by the following words: two tin sheds, one sahan, one Bukhari in tin shed, beneath one zeena, one Dalan, one room, two kothris, one latrine, one bath room, one kitchen on the ground floor and one room, one tin shed and open roof appurtenant to it and entire portion in possession of the defendant in building bearing number, 17/119, Billochpura, Tajganj, Agra". This application was allowed by the Judge Small Causes Court on 22-10-1994. This application was allowed by the Judge Small Causes Court on 22-10-1994. Petitioner filed a revision against this order and the revision has been dismissed by order dated 3-2-1996. Petitioner has challenged these orders in the instant writ petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that effect of allowing the amendment is that the issue which was remitted by the revisional court will have no substance. Details of the accommodation as given, if that is taken into account, the nature of the suit will be changed. 6. A perusal of the amendment sought by the plaintiff as indicated, above, shows that he has given the description of the property from which he wants to evict the petitioner. Plaintiff-respondent No. 3 could have indicated the property by moving an application for amendment. The effect of such amendment is still to be considered by the court to which the additional issue has been remitted. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision in K. Veerabassappa v. The Court of Dist. Judge at Chitradurga and others, AIR 1979 Karnataka 40, wherein landlord had filed an application for ejectment against tenant on the ground that the bona fide requires the accommodation in question. The application was rejected by the authority concerned. On revision being filed, the High Court remitted issue directing the trial court to enquire and decide issue as to whether area already in possession of the landlord on the first floor was suitable or not to run his business. Before the trial court, an application was filed by the tenant on the ground that the application was filed by the tenant on the ground that the application of the landlord was not maintainable because partition in the family of landlord had taken place and on such partition the landlord was not entitled to the disputed property. This amendment application was allowed. The trial court rejected application on the ground that it was not maintainable on the basis of partition in Landlords family. It was held that the High Court had directed to decide a specific issue and it was not open to the trial court to dismiss on a ground totally different on which the issue was remitted. 8. In the present case, the issue was remitted by the revisional court as to whether the suit was bad for partial ejectment. It was held that the High Court had directed to decide a specific issue and it was not open to the trial court to dismiss on a ground totally different on which the issue was remitted. 8. In the present case, the issue was remitted by the revisional court as to whether the suit was bad for partial ejectment. The plaintiff filed application and specified property from which he wants eviction of the tenant. The trial court will consider all the aspects and decide issue accordingly. 9. In view of the above, the orders passed by respondents 2 and 1, do not suffer from any illegality. 10. The writ petition, is, accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .