ORDER Rajendra Menon, J. 1. Challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to the order dated 11-2-2002 passed by IIIrd ADJ, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 296A of 1994 allowing application filed by the Respondent/defendants for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure and taking on record certain documents filed along with the application under Order 13, Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Petitioner is Plaintiff and has filed the suit in question inter alia contending that father of the Respondents had executed an agreement for sale on 18-5-1983, as per the term and condition of the agreement, a amount of Rs. 2950/- (Rs. two thousand, nine hundred and fifty only) has been adjusted as consideration of sale, of possession of the disputed house has been handed over to the Petitioner and now, as per conditions of the agreement, sale deed for the house was to be executed before 31-1-1984. Grievance of the Petitioner in the suit is that father of the Respondents has not executed sale deed in spite of the agreement which has been modified vide another agreement dated 2-9-1983, seeking specific performance of the aforesaid agreement, suit in question has been filed. 3. On notice being issued, Respondents have appeared and have filed the written statement. Along with the written statement, counter-claim has been filed by the Respondents. They have denied the averments made in the plaint and it is their case that the Petitioner is doing business of money lending and Respondents used to take amount from the Petitioner and as a security for the same the agreement was executed. In the counter-claim, a plea is raised that the Petitioner and his mother are tenants in the suit premises, Respondents are owner of the same, Petitioner had taken the suit premises on rent on Rs. 400/- (Rs. four hundred) per month, they have not paid the rent, a sum of Rs. 14400/- (Rs. fourteen thousand and four hundred only) remains to be paid as rent within the period of limitation prescribed for recovery prayer is made for payment of rent due for the period within limitation so also for eviction of the Petitioner from the suit premises on the grounds contemplated under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 4. 14400/- (Rs. fourteen thousand and four hundred only) remains to be paid as rent within the period of limitation prescribed for recovery prayer is made for payment of rent due for the period within limitation so also for eviction of the Petitioner from the suit premises on the grounds contemplated under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 4. The counter-claim is filed in the year 1995, and after recording of evidence, it is the case of the Petitioner that on 29-1-2002, two applications were filed by the Respondents one under Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure Annexure P/6 for amendment of written statement and another under Order 13, Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure Annexure P/7 for taking on record a notice and certain postal receipts for issuance of the aforesaid notice dated 12-5-1983. It is grievance of the Petitioner that both these applications have been allowed by the impugned order and assailing the order passed allowing these applications, present petition is filed. Shri Vinod Bhardwaj argued that in the written statement filed and the counter-claim only averment is made for payment of rent due and now, by amending petition, certain belated claim on the basis of a notice issued 16 years prior to filing of the suit i.e. on 12-5-1983, certain benefits are being claimed. Inter alia contending that the proposed amendment amounts to withdrawal of the admission made so also it amounts to making claim for belated dues, Petitioner seeks rejection of the application for amendment. Inviting my attention to certain observations made by a Bench of this Court in para 22 of it's judgment passed in the case of Hansa Devi v. Bachchalal reported 2002 1 MPLJ 122 , Shri Bhardwaj argued that averment made in a written statement or a counter-claim cannot be permitted to be withdrawn which has the effect of withdrawal of a admission made, causing irretrievable prejudice to one of the parties. Accordingly, interfere in the matter of allowing applications is sought in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. Refuting the aforesaid, Shri Rajendra Sagoria submitted the pleadings with regard to non-payment of rent and eviction on the grounds contemplated under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control, having already made, no prejudice is caused. Accordingly, interfere in the matter of allowing applications is sought in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. Refuting the aforesaid, Shri Rajendra Sagoria submitted the pleadings with regard to non-payment of rent and eviction on the grounds contemplated under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control, having already made, no prejudice is caused. The Petitioner it is stated wants to delay the proceedings and therefore, no case for interference in the matter is made out in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Respondents pray for dismissal of this petition. 6. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the records, it is seen that in the written statement and counter-claim filed by the Respondents vide Annexure P/5, it is stated by them in para 11 that the Petitioner is tenant in the suit premises for a rent of Rs. 400/- (Rs. four hundred only) per month. He has not paid rent for a long period of time and excluding the time barred claim, the rent three years prior to filing of the counter-claim amounting to Rs. 14400/- (Rs. fourteen thousand and four hundred) is liable to be paid to the Defendants. That apart, they claim eviction of the Petitioner from the suit premises on the grounds contemplated under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Now, by the proposed amendment, Annexure P/6, additional plea and ground is being raised by adding para 10A to the effect that in spite of registered notice dated 12-5-1983, being issued to the Petitioner, he has not paid rent and therefore, eviction is sought on the grounds contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. That apart, notice dated 12-5-1983 sent by registered post and the postal receipt for issuance of the aforesaid notice is filed along with the application under Order 12, Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. 7. Question is as to whether, by allowing the aforesaid amendment, learned Court has acted in excess of jurisdiction whether amendment allowed amounts to withdrawal of the admission made in favour of the Petitioner displacing his case completely and causing serious prejudice to the Petitioner. 8. 7. Question is as to whether, by allowing the aforesaid amendment, learned Court has acted in excess of jurisdiction whether amendment allowed amounts to withdrawal of the admission made in favour of the Petitioner displacing his case completely and causing serious prejudice to the Petitioner. 8. In the case of Hansa Rani (supra), relied upon by Shri Bhardwaj, it has been held that only such amendment can be refused which have the effect of withdrawing admission and which would cause irretrievable prejudice to one of the parties. However, it has been held in the same case that while considering an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, wide discretion is available to the Court to permit amendment if it is required for advancing cause of justice and is necessary for just and fair decision of the case. Supreme Court has way back in the year 1957 considered the question of allowing a application for amendment and in the case of Pregonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Ors. reported AIR 1957 SC 363 , so also in the case of L.J. Leach and Company Ltd. and another Messrs Jardine Skinner and Company reported in AIR 1957 SC 357 has laid down the principle that all amendments are to be allowed which satisfy the following conditions namely (a). Not working injustice to the other side and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. It has been held by Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that amendment would be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if pleading had been originally correct. Thereafter, aforesaid principle has been followed in the series of cases and in the case of M/s Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd. reported in AIR 2001 SC 3295 , the same question has again been considered by Supreme Court and the principle affirmed. It has been held by Supreme Court that amendment of pleading under Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure is to be allowed if such an amendment is required for proper and effective adjudication of the controversies between the parties so also to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings. However, it has been held that the amendment should not result in injustice to other side. However, it has been held that the amendment should not result in injustice to other side. In the case of Estrella Rubbers (supra), the Plaintiff had filed the suit against the Defendants in respect of the suit property for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement of building for rebuilding so also on the ground of default in payment of rent. The Defendants raised certain grounds including the ground regarding existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, the Defendants filed application for amendment in his written statement and by proposed amendment, Defendants wanted to show that the Plaintiff landlord was permissive occupier instead of owner. It was held by Supreme Court that if such an amendment is allowed, it is not shown as to how, it would cause prejudice to the Plaintiff. It has been held that no accruable right is tried to be taken away by the proposed amendment. Considering all these aspect of the matter allowing the application for amendment was held to be proper by the Supreme Court. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of the aforesaid legal principle, it is seen that in the counter-claim and written statement filed by Defendants the Defendants have already taken a plea with regard to non-payment of rent and have also sought eviction on the grounds contemplated under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Now, by the proposed amendment, they are adding another ground for eviction as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and also want to add a further fact by way of explanation to the effect that in spite of legal notice sent on 12-5-1983 rent has not been paid. It is not known as to how, aforesaid amendment amounts to withdrawal of any admission made in the written statement. It is the considered view of this Court that this amendment only elaborates the pleading with regard to payment of rent by indicating fact of issuance of registered notice dated 12-5-1983 and non-payment of rent even after such a demand. That apart, proposed amendment makes an additional ground for eviction. Both the grounds and prayer for eviction and non-payment of rent are already available in the written statement and counter-claim Annexure P/6 and the proposed amendment only elaborate and add to the aforesaid grounds. That apart, proposed amendment makes an additional ground for eviction. Both the grounds and prayer for eviction and non-payment of rent are already available in the written statement and counter-claim Annexure P/6 and the proposed amendment only elaborate and add to the aforesaid grounds. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the proposed amendment amounts to withdrawal of admission made nor does it cause any injustice to the Petitioner as it does not take away any legal right which had accrued to the Petitioner during pendency of the proceeding. I am of the considered view that the discretion exercised by the Court below in allowing application for amendment being in accordance with law, no case for interference in the matter is made out. 10. Accordingly, as no ground to interfere in the matter is made out, petition stands dismissed without any order as to the costs.