( 1 ) THE only question to be considered in the present case is whether in terms of the impugned order the application of the petitioner for amendment of the petition filed under Section 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been rightly rejected or does it suffer from any patent or jurisdictional error. ( 2 ) IN all these matters the identical question arises for consideration. ( 3 ) IT may be noticed that the landlord/respondent are subsequent purchasers of the suit property. The petitioners issued a notice alleging to be the tenants of the suit property in the individual capacity. However, when the petition was filed, it was claimed that the petitioner entity was a sole proprietorship and sole proprietorship was impleaded as petitioner No. 1. Subsequently by amendment a case is sought to be set up that petitioner No. 1 entity is a partnership firm. ( 4 ) IN my considered view, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the amendment applications. The petitioners having claimed that the entity is a sole proprietorship cannot be permitted to change that plea. The rent receipts are issued in the name of the petitioner entity. The petitioners not only issued notice and filed a petition but the affidavits were also filed as a sole proprietorship. It can hardly be said that the tenant would not be aware whether it is a sole proprietorship or a partnership when documents like affidavits, pleadings and notices are being issued/executed. The petitioner cannot be permitted to resile from their admission and set up a contradictory and mutually destructive plea. ( 5 ) THE impugned order cannot be said to suffer from any patent or jurisdictional error. Dismissed. CMs dismissed.