Dr. M. K. Sharma ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 20. 3. 1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in Suit No. 189/1996 dismissing the application of the petitioner/defendant No. I under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC seeking for amendment of the written statement and counter-claim. ( 2 ) THE aforesaid suit was instituted by the respondent as plaintiff and the son of the petitioner herein as defendant No. 2 for permanent injunction and also for mandatory injunction of eviction and for payment of damages in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi. In the aforesaid suit it was pleaded by the respondent that the petitioner was a friend of the respondent and that he was having his corrugated card board box making factory in the nearby premises and because of the friendship the respondent/plaintiff permitted petitioner/defendant No. 1 to stock and store at times his goods and material in a godown room of the suit premises of which the respondent was a licensee-owner without charging any rent for the same. It was alleged that on 29. 6. 1996, when the respondent was away on business tour to Madras, the petitioner/defendant No. 1 alongwith his son forcibly stored their raw material and goods in the impugned godown and locked the same. ( 3 ) THE petitioner and defendant No. 2 filed a written statement and counter-claim countering and repudiating the allegations contending, inter alia, that the petitioner was a lawful tenant of the premises by paying rent regularly and had paid the same till May, 1996 whereafter the respondent refused to accept the rent. Immediately thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Order 6, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code calling upon a direction to the petitioner for filing better particulars. It was stated in the said application that the plaintiff is a lawful licensee under Ramjas Foundation of the said premises alongwith other premises situated under the said number wherein the plaintiff firm is running a workship/factory for manufacturing the auto parts and accessories and as such the question of letting out the said premises in dispute to the defendants did not arise. ( 4 ) PETITIONER thereupon filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code seeking for amendment of the written statement and counter claim contending, inter alia, that subsequent to the filing of the written statement and counter claim and also with the filing of the aforesaid application under Order 6, Rule 5, CPC, the petitioner has come to learn that the respondent/plaintiff had let out on rent other premises in the same property to other tenants also and, therefore, the amendment in the written statement and counter claim has become necessary. The said application was contested by the respondent. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Trial Court dismissed the application holding that in the unamended written statement para 2 on merits everything had been explained by the defendant wherein the defendants have claimed that they are tenants of the property. It was further held that in the counterclaim also there was also a plea that the landlord had not been issuing any receipts and that the rent was paid upto May, 1996. In view of the aforesaid conclusions it was held that the amendments as sought for are not necessary to be incorporated in the written statement and if at all the defendants so desire they can summon the said tenants as witnesses. It was also held that the amendment as sought for is absolutely not relevant and has no relevance with the point in controversy involved in the suit. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner who submitted that the aforesaid amendments that are sought for are informations derived by the petitioner after filing of the written statement and the counter-claim and that they are necessary for determining the point in controversy of letting out the premises by the respondent. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the said amendments as sought for have no relevance to the matter in controversy. He also submitted that as a matter of fact pleadings in respect of the same already exist in the written statement and counter-claim and that the amendments as sought for are in the nature of evidence which cannot find place in the pleadings of the parties. He also submitted that as a matter of fact pleadings in respect of the same already exist in the written statement and counter-claim and that the amendments as sought for are in the nature of evidence which cannot find place in the pleadings of the parties. ( 6 ) A bare perusal of both the written statement and the counter-claim would indicate that the petitioner has already pleaded in the said written statement and counter-claim that the petitioner/defendant No. 1 is a tenant of the respondent/ plaintiff and that he had been paying rent in respect of the said premises, but no receipts had been issued. ( 7 ) THE matter in controversy in the suit would be as to whether the defendant was a tenant of the suit premises as alleged by him and whether he could be evicted from the said suit premises in terms of the decree sought for in the suit. The issue of letting out of the suit premises to other tenants shall not have any direct relevance and/or bearing with the issue in question nor the alleged tenancy between the respondent and the said tenants are at issue in the present case. Besides, the petitioner claims himself to be a tenant of the suit premises and claims to be in occupation of the said suit premises for a long time. The other alleged tenants were allegedly occupying other part of the same premises and, therefore, it cannot be believed that the- petitioner had no knowledge about the alleged letting out of the same premises to other tenants prior to filing of the written statement and counter-claim. ( 8 ) ON going through the relevant portion sought to be incorporated in the written statement, I am also of the considered opinion that they are more in the nature of evidence and, therefore, the Trial Court rightly held that there would be no bar for the petitioner in summoning the said other tenants as witnesses to prove the plea that rent are being accepted by the respondent by letting out the aforesaid premises to alleged tenants, including the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN my considered opinion, the amendment as sought for cannot be incorporated by way of amendment because of the aforesaid grounds and the petition has no merit and is dismissed. .