JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil revision is directed against the order of learned Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 6, Jodhpur dated 14.10.97 by which he rejected the amendment application of the defendant. 2. A suit for eviction under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act is pending before the trial Court against the petitioners. He has averred in the written statement that there was an agreement of sale between the parties and had paid some amount towards sale-price. He has also made a counter claim in the written statement. The case of the petitioners is that the plaintiff had purchased the house from the Rajasthan Housing Board on instalments and that the petitioners came to know that no registered sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff landlord. They also came to know that a house purchased from Housing Board on instalments cannot be let out. The petitioners defendants submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC that the amendment to this effect be made in the written statement. They wanted to raise a plea that the suit was not maintainable on the grounds that the plaintiff was not authorised to let out the house and that he did not get a registered sale deed executed in his favour. This amendment was disallowed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the question of amendment of written statement is to be seen from a different angle than the amendment in the plaint. He cited AIR 1979 HP 54, Hari Dass and others v. Kali Dass, wherein it has been observed that the amendment of a written statement cannot be considered on the same principles as amendment of the plaint. He also submitted that the law about amendment in written statement is very lenient and even contradictory pleas can be taken in the written statement. He submitted that even at the stage of appeal new plea can be taken and for the purpose he cited , Civil Misc. Writ No. 15547 of 1984. Gauri Bala Dutta v. IInd Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi and another, decided on 21.2.1991 . He submitted that this amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has controverted all these arguments. 6. Writ No. 15547 of 1984. Gauri Bala Dutta v. IInd Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi and another, decided on 21.2.1991 . He submitted that this amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has controverted all these arguments. 6. From a bare perusal of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC it is found that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. So the defendants petitioners have to satisfy whether the pleas which they want to take up now are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy. The suit is for the eviction as the plaintiff respondent claims that the petitioners are his tenants. But the petitioners have pleaded the case that they were living in the suit house under the agreement for sale. They went to take the plea that the plaintiff respondent could not have let out the house as according to the Rules of the Rajasthan Housing Board there was a bar to let out such houses which are allotted on instalments and further want to plead that no registered sale deed has been executed by the Rajasthan Housing Board is favour of the respondent plaintiff and, therefore, no cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff respondent. The plea of defendants petitioners living in the house in their own rights is already on record which is going to be decided by the trial Court. This plea which the defendants now want to take up is not such which is going to decide the real controversy between the parties. The amendment sought is not such which may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Therefore, in my view, the learned trial Judge has not committed any error of jurisdiction by disallowing the amendment application and this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.Revision dismissed.