JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated 19.9.2000 of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh whereby defendants application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement was dismissed. This application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant has arisen in these circumstances : 2. Ram Nath Sharma through Rajinder Paul Sharma his general attorney filed suit for ejectment against Naresh Kumar Goel-Defendant from up-stair room covering 300 sq. ft in factory shed No. 728 Phase-II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh and also for the recovery of Rs. 500/- as damages for the unauthorised use and occupation of the aforesaid up-stair room. It was alleged in the plaint that he is owner and landlord of factory shed No. 728, Phase-II, Industrial area, Chandigarh and Rajinder Paul Sharma is his duly authorised attorney. Naresh Kumar Goel is tenant under him in respect of one up-stair room covering 300 sq.ft. in factory shed No. 728 Phase-II Industrial Area, Chandigarh at a monthly rental of Rs. 1500/-, including water and electricity charges, Factory shed is exempted from the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Tenancy of the defendant was terminated vide registered notice dated 29.3.1990. Defendant duly received the said notice on 26.4.1990. He was requested to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question on or before 15 days of the receipt of the notice but he failed to vacate and hand over the possession. After the termination of the tenancy, the possession of the defendant is unauthorised so far as one up-stair room covering 300 sq.ft. factory shed No. 728 Phase-II Industrial Area, Chandigarh is concerned. Besides, defendant is liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month for the unauthorised use and occupation. He, however, claims Rs. 500/- only as damages as arrears of rent, without prejudice to his right to claim future damages at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month. In nutshell, this suit was filed by the plaintiff under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act after terminating the latters tenancy. Defendant Naresh Kumar Goel contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that he is occupying the demised premises under a valid rent agreement dated 16.5.1987. In the rent note, there is no provision of notice to be served by either of the parties. Defendant Naresh Kumar Goel contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that he is occupying the demised premises under a valid rent agreement dated 16.5.1987. In the rent note, there is no provision of notice to be served by either of the parties. The provisions of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 are applicable to the entire Union Territory, Chandigarh. As such, plaintiff cannot ask for his ejectment under the Transfer of Property Act. Defendant also pleaded that no notice terminating his tenancy was served upon him. Plaintiff has not disclosed rent agreement dated 16.5.1987 executed between him (Ram Nath Sharma) and the defendant. Photo copy of the said written statement dated 16.5.1987 was produced only on 14.2.1991 when defendant made application for its production on dated 3.12.1990. 3. Vide order dated 31.3.1994, trial court struck off the defence of the defendant and vide judgment dated 22.9.1994 decreed the plaintiffs suit holding that he was entitled to vacant possession of the demised premises by way of ejectment of the defendant. Plaintiff was also held entitled to recover from the defendant Rs. 500/- as damages alongwith costs of the suit. He was also held entitled to recover Rs. 1500/- as damages from the date of suit till the vacant possession was delivered to him. 4. Vide order dated 22.4.1993 Rajinder Paul Sharma was ordered to be enshrined as plaintiff in place of late Sh. Ram Nath Sharma being his legal heir. 5. Defendant went in appeal. Appeal was accepted by learned District Judge, Chandigarh vide order dated 10.8.2000. Learned District Judge while accepting the appeal set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.9.1994 of Sub Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh and directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit in accordance with law preferably within a period of 5 months from 10.8.2000 after affording not more than three effective opportunities to the defendant for substantiating his defence. 6. After the decree dated 22.9.1994 of learned Sub Judge Ist Class was set aside by the learned District Judge vide order dated 10.8.2002, plaintiff filed application for frame of additional issues before Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh on 31.8.2000. Case was adjourned to 8.9.2000 for filing reply to that application. 6. After the decree dated 22.9.1994 of learned Sub Judge Ist Class was set aside by the learned District Judge vide order dated 10.8.2002, plaintiff filed application for frame of additional issues before Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh on 31.8.2000. Case was adjourned to 8.9.2000 for filing reply to that application. Defendant filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the written statement alleging that when the plaintiff filed this suit, he did not disclose the agreement executed between Ram Nath Sharma and M/s Vikas Industries, which is a proprietary firm on 16.5.1987. The said written agreement was produced lateron at the instance of the defendant. Purport of agreement dated 16.5.1987 executed between Ram Nath Sharma (Landlord) and M/s Vikas Industries (tenant) is as follows : "This Rent Agreement is executed by M/s Vikas Industries a proprietorship firm of the Sh. Naresh Kumar Goel son of the late Sh. Rattan Lal Goel, resident of H.No. 2220, Sector 45-B, Chandigarh-tenant in favour of Sh Ram Nath Sharma son of Sh. Karam Chand Sharma, H.No. 2141 Sector 15-C, Chandigarh. Naresh Kumar Goel-proprietor of M/s Vikas Industries approached Ram Nath Sharma for giving to him on rent the premises covering 300 sq.ft. up-stair room of factory shed No. 728 Phase-II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh and the landlord agreed to give the same on rent on the terms and conditions set out in the rent agreement dated 16.5.1987. One of the terms and conditions set out in the rent agreement dated 16.5.1987 was that tenancy is for a period of 11 months i.e. from 16.5.1987 to 15.3.1988 and the tenant will not sublet the premises and the premises will be handed over to the landlord after 11 months. However, this rent deed can be extended for a period of six years with the mutual consent of the landlord and the tenant. There will be increase of 10% rent in case rent deed is renewed. It was alleged in the application for amendment that written statement earlier filed on 4.4.1991 does not contain certain legal pleas. These legal pleas could not be taken up because of the non- production of the rent agreement dated 16.5.1987. Through the proposed amendment, defendant wanted to delete certain lines in para Nos. 1 to 9 of the written statement. It was alleged in the application for amendment that written statement earlier filed on 4.4.1991 does not contain certain legal pleas. These legal pleas could not be taken up because of the non- production of the rent agreement dated 16.5.1987. Through the proposed amendment, defendant wanted to delete certain lines in para Nos. 1 to 9 of the written statement. He wanted to add certain lines in the preliminary objections besides taking few more preliminary objections which are legal and explanatory in nature connected with rent note/agreement dated 16.5.1987 as detailed in the application. After the preliminary objections are recast, rent agreement between Ram Nath Sharma and M/s Vikas Industries is to be set out. As per this rent agreement M/s Vikas Industries is the tenant in the premises in question at the rate of 675/- per month and Ram Nath is the landlord of the premises in question. After the expiry of 11 months, landlord Ram Nath allowed the tenant-M/s Vikas Industries to continue as tenant on the same rate of rent i.e. 675/- per month which is same till today. Tenancy is still continuing in the name of M/s Vikas Industries and M/s Vikas Industries is doing business in the premises in question. The tenancy was never changed in the name of Naresh Kumar Goel-present defendant nor the plaintiff has produced any document on record when the premises in question was vacated by M/s Vikas Industries and new tenancy was created in favour of Naresh Kumar Goel-present defendant. Licence of small scale industries to be run in the premises in question is still in the name of M/s Vikas Industries and M/s Vikas Industries is working in the premises in question from May 1987. The cheques etc. what-ever were paid that were paid from the account of M/s Vikas Industries and not from the account of Naresh Kumar Goel. M/s Vikas Industries is the tenant in the premises in question and admittedly no notice was given to M/s Vikas Industries for terminating the tenancy by the landlord-Ram Nath Sharma on or before 30.6.1990. The cheques etc. what-ever were paid that were paid from the account of M/s Vikas Industries and not from the account of Naresh Kumar Goel. M/s Vikas Industries is the tenant in the premises in question and admittedly no notice was given to M/s Vikas Industries for terminating the tenancy by the landlord-Ram Nath Sharma on or before 30.6.1990. No tenancy of M/s Vikas Industries was ever terminated and the same is still continuing and after the expiry of the five years from the date of taking of the sewerage connection, the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent restriction Act as applicable to U.T. Chandigarh became applicable to this building and in view of these provisions no suit is maintainable in law and only the ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Rent Act is maintainable. Hence, the suit is not maintainable and deserve to be dismissed as no tenancy has been terminated by the landlord of M/s Vikas Industries till today. In preliminary objection No. 3, the last word after the words executed between the word "the parties" is to be deleted and in place of that "the words M/s Vikas Industries and Sh. Ram Nath Sharma" be added. Besides the aforesaid additions and deletions in preliminary objections No. 1 to 3, three more preliminary objection as mentioned in the application were sought to be taken which would constitute paras 4 to 6. 7. This application was opposed by the plaintiff. It was urged that this was not the prayer for amendment of the written statement. In fact, it was a prayer for permission to file a fresh written statement. Fresh written statement if allowed to be filed would be a de novo written statement amending all the paras of original written. It was also urged that through the proposed amendment of the written statement, inconsistent pleas would also be taken. By way of amendment, inconsistent pleas cannot be allowed to be taken. In the garb of amendment, one cannot be allowed to withdraw his admission made earlier. Defendants want to raise new pleas after the close of evidence of the plaintiff. In this way, entire case would be reopened and the plaintiff will have to lead fresh evidence. Such action on the part of the defendant is not permissible under the law. In the garb of amendment, one cannot be allowed to withdraw his admission made earlier. Defendants want to raise new pleas after the close of evidence of the plaintiff. In this way, entire case would be reopened and the plaintiff will have to lead fresh evidence. Such action on the part of the defendant is not permissible under the law. Rent agreement dated 16.5.1987 was for a period of 11 months and thereafter defendant entered into a fresh tenancy at a monthly rental of Rs. 1500/-. After the expiry of 11 months rent agreement dated 16.5.1987 ceased to be enforceable and new tenancy came into existence between the parties i.e. Ram Nath Sharma and Naresh Kumar Goel. The terms and conditions set out in the agreement dated 16.5.1987 were not operating after the expiry of the 11 months period. Written statement was filed on 4.4.1991. Copy of rent agreement dated 16.5.1987 was produced on 14.2.1991 on the application dated 3.12.1990 of the plaintiff for production of agreement 14.2.1991. It was thus not open to the defendant to take up any plea arising out of rent agreement dated 16.5.1987 saying that the plea could not be taken up in the earlier written statement dated 4.4.1991. In the garb of amendment, defendant wants to take a complete somersault to his earlier case. He wants to make out entirely a fresh case by taking inconsistent pleas and by withdrawing admissions already made. Amendment which alters the nature and character of the defence cannot be allowed under the law. 8. Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh vide order dated 19.9.2002 declined the defendants prayer to amend written statement. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the premises was taken on rent by M/s Vikas Industries from Ram Nath Sharma vide rent agreement dated 16.5.1987. Premises was not taken on rent by Naresh Kumar Goel from Ram Nath Sharma. As such any voice served upon Naresh Kumar Goel terminating his tenancy is no notice in the eye of law. Premises was not taken on rent by Naresh Kumar Goel from Ram Nath Sharma. As such any voice served upon Naresh Kumar Goel terminating his tenancy is no notice in the eye of law. It was submitted that defendant wanted to take every plea which he can take in view of the fact that this premises was taken on rent by M/s Vikas Industries from Ram Nath Sharma vide rent agreement dated 16.5.1987 and this premises was not taken on rent by Naresh Kumar Goel. It was submitted that defendant wanted to re-cast his written statement and take pleas which can be taken if the premises was taken on rent not by Naresh Kumar Goel but by M/s Vikas Industries through written agreement dated 16.5.1987. 11. Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh declined the defendants prayer for amendment of the written statement saying that the defendant has failed to give any cogent reason as to why these objections were not taken at the time when earlier written statement was filed, when the factum of rent agreement dated 16.5.1987 was well within the knowledge of the defendant. Learned Civil Judge also felt that if the proposed amendment is allowed, entire written statement will be changed and all-together a new written statement will emerge. Defendant has asked for the over-hauling of the entire written statement filed earlier, which cannot be allowed. Delay in the filing of application for amendment of the written statement also influenced the decision of learned Civil Judge. Suit was filed in the year 1990 while this application for amendment was filed in the year 2002. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay in seeking amendment of the pleadings cannot be fatal if the party affected by the allowing of the proposed amendment can be compensated with costs. It was submitted that defendant wanted to plead through proposed amendment that tenancy was created between Ram Nath Sharma-landlord and M/s Vikas Industries vide written agreement dated 16.5.1987. It is M/s Vikas Industries, which is tenant and not Naresh Kumar Goel. After the expiry of 11 months period, which was the period of tenancy as mentioned in the agreement dated 16.5.1987, tenancy could be extended for the period of six years with the mutual consent of the landlord and the tenant. In case of renewal of rent deed, there was to be increase of 10% in rent. After the expiry of 11 months period, which was the period of tenancy as mentioned in the agreement dated 16.5.1987, tenancy could be extended for the period of six years with the mutual consent of the landlord and the tenant. In case of renewal of rent deed, there was to be increase of 10% in rent. After the expiry of 11 months, Ram Nath Sharma allowed the tenant-M/s Vikas Industries to continue as tenant and M/s Vikas Industries is continuing as tenant till now. M/s Vikas Industries is running a small scale industry. If tenancy of M/s Vikas Industries is to be terminated, six months notice is necessary for terminating the tenancy as it was for an industrial purpose that the tenancy was created. After the expiry of 5 years period, this premises no longer remains exempt so far as the provision of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, is concerned and ejectment is claimable only under Section 13 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pleas sought to be taken by him by way of amended written statement are all legal pleas. Legal pleas can always be taken up. It was also submitted that assuming defendant had made any admission earlier, he has the liberty to show that the admission made by him earlier is erroneous. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Gujjar Singh v. Gulzar Singh and others, 1992 PLJ 307 where it was held that admission made by a party may be withdrawn on explained away. It is always open to a party to show that the admission was wrong. Admission earlier made in written statement apparently erroneous and on assumed facts, party cannot be refused to amend its pleadings even if sought to be done at quite later stage or appellate stage. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that no amendment of the pleadings should be allowed, the effect of which is the withdrawal of admission made earlier. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal, AIR 1998 SC 618 where it was held that amendment of pleadings should not be allowed where party seeking amendment of pleadings is trying to withdraw the admission made by it earlier. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal, AIR 1998 SC 618 where it was held that amendment of pleadings should not be allowed where party seeking amendment of pleadings is trying to withdraw the admission made by it earlier. He also drew my attention to Amarjeet v. Kulwant Ram, 1998(3) RCR(Civil) 111 where it was held that defendant had admitted the claim of plaintiff in the written statement as also in his statement made before the Court, he cannot be allowed to withdrew his admission lateron. 14. It is true that a party in the garb of amendment of its pleadings cannot be allowed to introduce such an amendment, the effect of which is the withdrawal of admission made earlier, but it is equally true that party is always at liberty to show that admission made earlier is erroneous. In Panchdeo Narain v. Jyoti, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 462 it was ruled by the Honble Supreme Court that an admission made by a party may be withdrawn or explained away. 15. In Kehar Singh v. Balraj Singh and others, 1991 PLJ 154 it was observed as follows : 16. "On a consideration of the matter, I am of the view that this revision deserves to succeed. It is true that Kehar Singh made an admission that defendants 2 to 9 owned 8/9th share in the land, which was subject matter of gifts but it is always open to a party to show that the admission was wrong. If defendants 2 to 9 are the collaterals of an equal degree to the plaintiff, it will be open to them to show the same and if they establish then the plaintiff will fail in spite of amendment. But in case the plaintiff is not given opportunity to back out of the wrong admission, he would not be able to show that the admission was wrong." 17. In my opinion, the proposed amendment should have been allowed, as through the proposed amendment only legal pleas are sought to be introduced and further if there was any admission made by the defendant in the earlier written statement, that will be explained away by the proposed amendment of the written statement now. So this revision is allowed. Defendant is allowed to carry out the proposed amendment and file fresh written statement. He will pay Rs. So this revision is allowed. Defendant is allowed to carry out the proposed amendment and file fresh written statement. He will pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the plaintiff if he means to effect the proposed amendment. No order as to cost so far as this revision is concerned. Revision allowed.