DIBYENDU BHUSAN DUTTA, J. ( 1 ) IN this application under Section 115 of CPC, the order dated 5th January, 1999 passed by the learned Judge, Sixth Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court in Distress Case No. 13 of 1997 has been challenged. By that order the learned Judge refused to allow in full the amendment that was proposed to be made on behalf of the petitioner-defendant in his written objection filed in that case. ( 2 ) THE opposite party filed the distress case against the petitioner under Section 53 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act for realisation of a sum of Rs. 8,640/- towards the rent in arrear for a period of 12 months from July, 1996 to June, 1997 on the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of rooms Nos. 84 and 85 located at 14/2, Old China Bazar Street, Calcutta at a rent of Rs. 720/- per month. A distress warrant was issued by the Court in respect of the goods and chattals to be found within the said premises. In pursuance of the distress warrant issued on 10th July, 1997 by the Court to cover the claim and cost, the petitioner's property was attached and the petitioner appeared before the Court on 17th July, 1997 and asked for time to deposit the entire distress amount which was eventually deposited on 21-7-97 along with a written objection wherein it was alleged that one Gopal Das Bagri was his landlord in relation to the premises concerned and not the opposite party and that he was paying rent in respect of the suit premises to the said Gopal Das Bagri. It was further alleged that some time back the opposite party falsely represented him to be the landlord and started collecting rent from the petitioner who, however, started depositing the rent with the Rent Controller in favour of Gopal Das Bagri as soon as the landlordship of the said Gopal Das Bagri came to his knowledge. In the circumstances it was alleged by the defendant petitioner in his written objection that he was not a defaulter in payment of rent and the distress proceeding is liable to be dismissed. ( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the defendant petitioner filed a petition under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC proposing certain amendments to his written objection. In the circumstances it was alleged by the defendant petitioner in his written objection that he was not a defaulter in payment of rent and the distress proceeding is liable to be dismissed. ( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the defendant petitioner filed a petition under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC proposing certain amendments to his written objection. One such amendment was for correction of the section of the law which was wrongly mentioned in the written objection. In the prayer portion of the written objection in place of Section 60, Section 61 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act was written through a bona fide mistake. Another amendment was also for correction of a typing mistake in paragraph 1 wherein instead of the word 'petitioner' the word 'petition' has been typed. So far as these two amendments are concerned, obviously they are formal in nature and was made only to correct inadvertant typographical mistake and by the impugned order, this part of the amendment was allowed. Baring this amendment, the learned Judge by the impugned order refused to allow the other amendments that were proposed to be made by the defendant petitioner in his written objection. The petitioner's case was that since the objection was filed in a great hurry, certain facts were omitted to be disclosed in the written objection and that is why by the proposed amendment, several paragraphs namely paragraphs 9 to 13 were sought to be added. The sum and substance of the said amendment may be stated as follows. Originally a firm under the name and style of Narayani Press was inducted as a tenant of the rooms bearing Nos. not only 84 and 85 but also 43 and the petitioner is a partner of the said firm. The petitioner has no tenancy in the premises concerned in his personal name and as such the distress proceeding is liable to be rejected. The ownershipof the opposite party is disputed and several suits are pending before the High Court. not only 84 and 85 but also 43 and the petitioner is a partner of the said firm. The petitioner has no tenancy in the premises concerned in his personal name and as such the distress proceeding is liable to be rejected. The ownershipof the opposite party is disputed and several suits are pending before the High Court. Suit No. C. S. 378 of 1995 is between the opposite party and the said Gopal Das Bagri and suit No. CS 293 of 1996 is between the opposite party and Vikam Chand Market Traders and Tenants' Association and others and a partition and administration suit being CS No. 166 of 1996 is between the plaintiff and the said Gopal Das Bagri as also one K. K. Kothari in respect of the disputed premises. The disputed property was allotted to Gopal Das Bagri in a partition suit whereby he became the absolute owner thereof. It is not known whether the said Bagri has validly transferred the said property to the opposite party. The petitioner did not receive any letter of attornment from the said Bagri intimating that the opposite party is the owner of the concerned premises. The distress case is not maintainable. ( 4 ) AGAINST this part of the amendment, written objection was filed on behalf of the opposite party contending, inter alia, that valuable right has already accrued to the opposite party and as such it could not be allowed to be taken away by the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment is not formal in nature and if it is allowed it would seriously affect the rights of the opposite party. It was further asserted that by a letter of attornment Gopal Das Bagri, the former co-owner of several premises including the premises No. 14/2, China Bazar Street directed the tenants thereof including the petitioner to pay rent to the plaintiff. It was also alleged on behalf of the opposite party that on or about 16th September, 1989 the defendant petitioner entered into an agreement for tenancy in respect of the suit rooms Nos. 84 and 85 on the ground floor of premises No. 14/2, Old China Bazar Street with the opposite party. It was also alleged on behalf of the opposite party that on or about 16th September, 1989 the defendant petitioner entered into an agreement for tenancy in respect of the suit rooms Nos. 84 and 85 on the ground floor of premises No. 14/2, Old China Bazar Street with the opposite party. On that very date, the petitioner did also enter into a further agreement with the opposite party with regard to the payment of service charges by him to the opposite party in respect of the suit premises. It was also alleged that by letter dated 9-5-96 the opposite party communicated to the defendant petitioner the orders that were passed by the High Court and requested him to clear all monthly rents. The opposite party annexed to the written objection the copies of the letter of attornment, the two agreements as also the letter dated 25-7-96 as referred to above and prayed for dismissal of this part of the amendment on the ground that the petitioner was seeking to introduce a new case. ( 5 ) THE learned Court below upheld all the main objections that were raised on behalf of the plaintiff opposite party against the proposed amendment. It was of the view that in the original written objection filed by the defendant petitioner, the defendant petitioner did make an admission which could be relied upon by the plaintiff opposite party and that by the proposed amendment the said admission was sought to be withdrawn by the petitioner. The learned Court below also considered the documents that were annexed with the written objection filed on behalf of the plaintiff opposite party against the prayer for amendment and did also take note of the fact that it was nowhere stated in the petition for amendment that the said admission was made inadvertantly or erroneously or due to ignorance of law or due to the fault of his advocate. The learned Court below was also of the view that the proposed amendment, if allowed, would displace the plaintiff's case and that it was not necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties in the case. In such view of the matter, the Court below rejected the amendment as referred to above. ( 6 ) MR. The learned Court below was also of the view that the proposed amendment, if allowed, would displace the plaintiff's case and that it was not necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties in the case. In such view of the matter, the Court below rejected the amendment as referred to above. ( 6 ) MR. Tandon, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, referred to three decisions reported in (1991) 1 Cal HN 257: In Re : Madhusudan Chowdhury; (1993) 97 Cal WN 1040 : In Re : The Bhowanipore Gujarati Education Society and AIR 1995 SC 1498 , Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa and submitted that even if it be assumed that the petitioner did make an admission in his earlier written objection, such admission could be explained and the Court below was not justified in refusing to allow such an amendment. ( 7 ) IN Madhusudan Chowdhury's case the allegation of fraud in the original written statement was somewhat vague and without any particulars and it was sought to be substituted by giving more particulars about fraud and a Division Bench of our High Court held that such an amendment should not have been rejected particularly when in the facts of the case it could not be said that the application was filed with a mala fide motive. ( 8 ) IN The Bhowanipore Gujarati Education Society, (1993 (97) Cal WN 1040) (supra), the suit was one for declaration that theplaintiffs were Class III staff of the Society stating, inter alia, that they were working as laboratory assistants under the Society. The defendant in his written statement stated, inter alia, that the statement was substantially correct. But subsequently they filed an application for amendment of the written statement stating that the plaintiffs were appointed as laboratory attendants and not laboratory assistants as alleged in the plaint and a single Bench of our High Court was of the view that the said amendment should have been allowed particularly in view of the fact that by such amendment, no attempt was made to withdraw any admission made in the written statement. ( 9 ) IN Akshaya Restaurant's case ( AIR 1995 SC 1498 ) (supra), it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the respondents having made an admission was not entitled to wriggle out from that admission and that admission is a material piece of evidence which would be in favour of the appellant and binds the respondents when the admission is sought to be withdrawn by amendment and some additional facts are sought to be introduced, it would be inconsistent and such an amendment should not be permitted. The Supreme Court found no force in the contention. In paragraph 5 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed :"it is settled law that even the admission can be explained and even inconsistent pleas could be taken in the pleadings. " ( 10 ) BUT the Supreme Court later in AIR 1998 SC 618 , Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal held the aforesaid view of the Supreme Court in Akshaya Restaurant to be per incuriam inasmuch as the said decision of the Supreme Court runs counter to a decision of a three Judge Bench in the case of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram and Co. , AIR 1977 SC 680 wherein the Supreme Court had to consider the question whether the defendant can be allowed to amend his written statement by taking an inconsistent plea as compared to an earlier plea which contained an admission in favour of the plaintiff and it was held by the said earlier three Judge Bench that such an inconsistent plea which would displace the plaintiff completely from the admission made in the written statement cannot be allowed because if such amendments are allowed, the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunities of extracting the admissions from the defendants. The Supreme Court categorically held in paragraph 9 of the judgment that the said decision of the three Judge Bench was a clear authority for the proposition that once the written statement contains an admission in favour of the plaintiff by amendment such admission cannot be allowed to be withdrawn if such withdrawal would amount to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff and would cause him irretrievable prejudice. ( 11 ) BY the impugned order, the learned Court below virtually rejected the amendment in question on the ground that it sought to introduce an inconsistent plea as compared to earlier plea which contains an admission in favour of the plaintiff opposite party and that if such amendment be allowed the petitioner would be irreparably prejudiced by denying the opportunities of extracting the admission. In the application for amendment, no reason has been assigned as to why the inconsistent plea which is now sought to be introduced by the amendment was not initially made in the original written objection. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff opposite party also took me through the two agreements that were purported to have been made by the petitioner in favour of the plaintiff opposite party as also the orders of the High Court that were said to have been communicated to the petitioner by the plaintiff opposite party. ( 12 ) THUS having regard to the materials on record and in view of the Supreme Court decision in Heeralal, ( AIR 1998 SC 618 ) (supra), I have no hesitation to hold that no jurisdictional error was committed by the learned Court below in refusing to allow the proposed amendment to the extent specified in the impugned order. In such view of the matter, no interference with the impugned order is called for. In the result, the revisional application fails and is hereby accordingly dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without any cost. Application dismissed.