Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been moved to challenge the order dated 7.6.2008 passed by the learned Rent Controller dismissing an application moved by the petitioner for amendment of written statement. 2. The petitioner is a tenant and the ejectment of the petitioner has been sought by landlord Manjeet Kaur on the ground of personal need. The trial has already commenced and the case is fixed for cross-examination of the landlords witnesses. 3. The petitioner seeks to amend the written statement on the ground that during the pendency of the petition husband of the landlord came in possession of three shops and all the three shops stands sold by the husband and the said fact is required to be pleaded by amending the written statement. 4. The learned trial Court rejected the application by coming to conclusion that the landlord is Manjeet Kaur whereas the shops were said to have been inherited by her husband along with other co-sharers, thus, the learned Rent Controller came to conclusion that the amendment sought is not relevant to the matter in issue as it was for the landlord to decide as to which shop she would like to get vacated. The learned Courts below also observed that the shop did not belong to the petitioner, but the husband. The learned Counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of B.K.N. Pillar v. P. Pillai 2001 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 10 contended that power to allow amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai (supra) the Court was not justified in adopting hyper technical approach while dealing with prayer for amendment. 5. The case has no relevance to the facts of the present case because the Honble Supreme Court in the said case allowed the amendment of pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 5. The case has no relevance to the facts of the present case because the Honble Supreme Court in the said case allowed the amendment of pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation. In the present case, as already observed above, the pleadings sought to be pleaded have no concern inter se between the parties as the shops are said to have been inherited by the husband of the landlord and not by her. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., to contend that no serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondent if the amendment is allowed. However, this plea of the petitioner is also not tenable as amendment of pleadings as sought would delay the proceedings of the case, which would certainly prejudice the landlord who seeks eviction of the petitioner from the property in dispute for personal need and occupation. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner finally, has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. Mohinder Pal Singh and Anr. (2007-4) 148 P.L.R. 422 to contend that when due to subsequent event the bona fide need ceased to exist in that event the respondent-tenant should be allowed to amend the petition to bring on record those facts. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is that in the present case because of availability of three shops with the husband, the bona fide requirement of the landlord-wife ceased to exist. This plea of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is also misconceived as in the present case the shops have not been inherited by the landlord but her husband as co-sharer and the shops have been sold off. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Court below is in consonance with law, which does not call for interference by this Court. Dismissed.