JUDGMENT 1. - As both these cases relate to one suit, they are being disposed of by common order.REVISION NO. 1315/95 2. Indisputably, the age of litigation is 20 years. The plaintiff petitioner (for short the land lord) instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of rent in respect of property in question against the defendant non-petitioner (for short the tenant) in the trial court in the year 1977 on the grounds of personal bonafide necessity and default in making payment of rent. The tenant contested the suit by raising various objections out of which main objection was that the property in question was taken on rent by him from one Abdul Rahim and after his death, his daughter's son Abdul Gafoor used to receive rent from him. The trial court after trial dismissed the suit on April 21, 1989. The land lord preferred regular first appeal against the decree of the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal the land lord, on April 15, 1995 moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of plaint. The learned appellate court vide order dated Sept. 18, 1995 allowed the application. Against this order that the tenant has filed the instant revision. 3. The land lord by way of amendment intended to incorporate in the plaint that though the property in question was purchased through a registered sale deed dated June 8, 1933 but he became the owner of the said property on November 22, 1968 when a compromise decree was passed. After the death of Abdul Karim, Mst. Rahiman and Ziyauddin the whole of the property devolved on him. In the capacity of owner he instituted suits against the other tenants which were decreed. Therefore he was the sole owner and land lord of the property in question. The land lord also sought to amend the plaint raising new ground of eviction 'denial of title by the tenant' and the plea that consideration of partial eviction of the property was also not in favour of the tenant. A prayer of declaration of title was also sought. 4. The learned appellate court allowed the amendment observing that it was necessary for the last decision of the case and for preventing the multiplicity of the suits. A prayer of declaration of title was also sought. 4. The learned appellate court allowed the amendment observing that it was necessary for the last decision of the case and for preventing the multiplicity of the suits. The learned Judge also observed that `Meri Rai Main Abhi Prakaran Main Itni Deri Nahin Hui Hai' (In my opinion there is no such delay in the litigation.) 5. I bestowed my careful consideration to the rival contentions. The principles deducible from the authorities cited at the bar are the all amendments will be generally permissible when they are necessary for determination of the real controversy in the suit. All the same, substitution of one cause of action or the nature of the claim for another in the original plaint or change of the subject matter of or controversy in the suit is not permissible. Introduction by amendment of inconsistent or contradictory allegations in negation of the admitted position on facts, or mutually destructive allegations of facts are also impermissible though inconsistent pleas on the admitted position can be introduced by way of amendment. In general, the amendment should not cause prejudice . to the other side which cannot he compensated in costs. Amendment of a claim or relief which is barred by limitation when the amendment is sought to be made should not be allowed to defeat the legal right accrued except when such consideration is outweighed by the special circumstances of the case. 6. The question which has come up for consideration is whether the learned appellate court was justified in allowing the land lord to raise a new contention and in giving a new lease of life to the litigation? 7. Raj Kumar Mohan Singh v. Raj Kumar Pashupati N.S. Singh, ( AIR 1970 SC 42 ) was the case where the defendant applied in the Supreme Court for amendment of written statement to raise a new contention. It was held by their Lordships that " This case is more than 22 years old and we do not think that we would be justified at this date in allowing the parties to raise a new contention and give it a fresh lease of life." 8. It was held by their Lordships that " This case is more than 22 years old and we do not think that we would be justified at this date in allowing the parties to raise a new contention and give it a fresh lease of life." 8. Kumarswami Gaunda v. D.R. Nanjappa Gounda, (AIR 1978 Madras 285) where Full Bench of the Madras High Court observed thus: "Having regard to the age of this litigation, and also for the reason that the amendment sought for sets up a totally different cause of action which ex facie can not stand on a line with the original pleading, we are unable to allow the application for amendment. A pleading could only be amended if it is to substantiate elucidate and expand the preexisting facts already contained in the original pleadings, but under the guise of an amendment a new cause and a case cannot be substituted and the courts cannot he asked to adjudicate the alternative case instead of original case." 9. I am unable to endorse the view of learned appellate court that`there is no such delay in the litigation.' The litigation is admittedly 20 years old.- The trial court dismissed the suit in the year 1989 and regular first appeal is pending for a ,period of more than eight years. A look at the amendment sought by the land lord indicates that the land lord wanted to substitute new cause and a case and asked the court to adjudicate the alternative case instead of original case. It would be hazardous to accept such a belated application which is ex facie after thought and lacks bonafides. 10. I am of the considered opinion, that suit for eviction can not be converted by the land lord as suit for declaration of title of the property. The learned appellate court proceeded to adjudicate the application for amendment with this assumption that there was no delay in the litigation and thus committed jurisdictional error in giving new lease of life to the litigation. If the order of the learned appellate court is allowed to stand it would occasion failure of justice. 11. Consequently, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated Sept. 18, 1995 stands set aside.MISC. APPEAL NO. 976/96 12. If the order of the learned appellate court is allowed to stand it would occasion failure of justice. 11. Consequently, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated Sept. 18, 1995 stands set aside.MISC. APPEAL NO. 976/96 12. The learned appellate court after passing the order dated September 18, 1995 allowing the amendment of plaint, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and remanded the case to the trial court for fresh trial in the light of amendment. As I have quashed the order dated September 1.8, 1.995, the later order of trial court dated November 4, 1995 automatically stands set aside. 13. In the result the MISC. APPEAL is allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court dated April 21,1989 are restored. As the appeal is pending for a long time, I direct the appellate court to decide the same with in a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Costs easy.Revision Allowed. *******