JUDGMENT 1. - The defendant-petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 3-9-1997 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Bikaner in Civil Appeal (decree) No. 19/96 whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. was dismissed. 2. The non-petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner-defendant on the ground of default of payment of rent control nonuser of tenanted premises. In reply to the allegations of the plaintiff, the defendant-petitioner submitted that the rent of the shop was paid by the defendant-petitioner to the plaintiff till the date of filing appeal but no receipt was given by the landlord. Hence the petitioner-defendant is not a defaulter. The defendant also submitted that plaintiff took some ornaments valued at Rs. 12,000/- from the defendant-petitioner towards rent but did not pass any receipt. The defendant also alleged in the written statement that plaintiff damaged and broke a portion of the wall of the suit premises and prevented the defendant from entering the shop. The son of the plaintiff even threatened the defendant that if he dared enter the shop he would see him. The petitioner, therefore, lodged a criminal complaint against the plaintiff under Sections 107 and 116(3) Cr. P.C. The defendant suffered a loss of Rs. 3,000/- on account of the above unauthorised act of the plaintiff. The defendant also filed a suit for injunction against the non-petitioner landlord for restraining the non-petitioner from interfering with his enjoyment of the suit premises. The order was issued by the Court and it was confirmed also on 27-8-1994. The defendant-petitioner moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 on the ground that though the defendant made all the material allegations against the plaintiff for damaging and breaking the wall and preventing him from enjoying the suit premises, no appropriate relief on these allegations could be asked in written statement on account of inadvertence of his counsel. The defendant, therefore, sought an amendment that on account of the above acts of the plaintiff, a right accrued to the defendant to suspend payment of the rent. The application was resisted by the non-petitioner plaintiff on the ground that the allegations regarding the wall made by the defendant petitioner are void and the same have been rebutted by the plaintiff. The application was resisted by the non-petitioner plaintiff on the ground that the allegations regarding the wall made by the defendant petitioner are void and the same have been rebutted by the plaintiff. In fact the plaintiff sought eviction of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the suit premises were not used by the latter for specific period. No rent was paid by the defendant-petitioner even after its determination by the Court. 3. The learned appellate Court, by the impugned order, rejected the above application. 4. I have heard Shri Prakash Tatia appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Shri Tatia has submitted that the amendment sought by the petitioner-defendant amounts to seeking a relief based on the facts or averments already made in the pleading. The petitioner-defendant did not seek any amendment which could alter the nature of the suit or gave rise to a new cause of action or caused any prejudice to the opposite party in any way. 6. He, therefore, pleaded that the learned trial Court committed a jurisdictional error in not exercising the same in allowing the proposed amendment. 7. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties. It may be stated that the suit of the plaintiff is of ejectment. The plaintiff has sought to eject the defendant on the ground of non-payment of rent and also non-user of the suit premises. The averment with regard to payment of rent made by the defendant-petitioner is contradictory. In the memo of appeal, the appellant has clearly alleged that he paid rent to the non-petitioner-plaintiff up to the period of filing the appeal but no receipt was given. He also alleged that certain ornaments were taken from him by the plaintiff valued at Rs. 12,000/-. It may be stated that at no stage of the pleading, the defendant-petitioner claimed a right to suspend the rent. On the contrary, he came with a specific plea that he paid rent but the plaintiff did not pass receipt. Reference may also be made to the order by which the Court determined rent between the parties. In those proceedings also the defendant never claimed his right to suspend payment of rent on the ground that the plaintiff had damaged the wall and prevented him from entering the shop and enjoying its possession. Reference may also be made to the order by which the Court determined rent between the parties. In those proceedings also the defendant never claimed his right to suspend payment of rent on the ground that the plaintiff had damaged the wall and prevented him from entering the shop and enjoying its possession. By moving this amendment, the intention of the defendant-petitioner seems to take the issue of payment of rent again supposedly on the ground that since the defendant was denied enjoyment of the suit premises, he had a right to suspend the rent. The defendant-petitioner ought to have taken this ground while resisting the determination of rent. He did not allege this plea at the time of determination of rent. He rather sought extension of time in depositing the determined rent twice. He also pleaded payment of rent. If the above amendment is allowed, it will complicate the matter. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do no to think that the amendment sought is necessary for the determination of the real controversy between the parties. 9. For the above reasons, I do not find any substance in the revision petition and the same is here dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******