JUDGMENT S.D. Anand, J.:- The respondent-landlord filed a petition for the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on an averment of non payment of rent and personal bonafide necessity of the tenanted premises for her indicated son. 2. The plea was resisted by the petitioner-tenant by averring the contrary. 3. It was in the year 2008 that the petitioner-tenant filed a plea to amend the written statement and to thereby aver that the plea for personal bonafide necessity raised was malafide inasmuchas the indicated son of the respondent-landlord was, infact, running an independent marble and granite business at Faridabad. 4. The plea was negatived by the learned Rent Controller by observing that it was highly belated. It was noticed, in the context, the petition had been filed on 2.7.2004. The written statement was filed by the respondent on 11.4.2005. Issues was framed vide order dated 10.6.2006. The respondent-landlord had already closed their evidence. The petitioner herein had already examined as many as five witnesses and it is thereafter that the application under challenge came to be filed by the petitioner. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fact (that the indicated son of the respondent-landlord is running a business) came to the notice of the petitioner in the year 2008 itself when some one purchased Kota stone from the shop run by indicated son of the respondent-landlord. Learned counsel, in order to support the advocated view, placed reliance upon a cash invoice dated 24.11.2008. It is that transaction only, the argument proceeds, which gave the petitioner herein an idea about the nature of business being handled by indicated son of the respondent-landlord. 6. There is nothing illegal or perverse in the manner of exercise of judicial discretion by the learned Rent Controller. I find from the order that it proceeds on a fair appreciation of factual state between the parties. If the petitioner-tenant wanted to raise a plea to the above effect, it was open to him to make a mention of that fact in the main petition itself. The present plea is, obviously, belated and the petitioner has not been able to explain when he came to be in possession of invoice dated 24.11.2008 because this purchase is not averred to have not been made by him from the indicated son of the petitioner. 7. The present plea is, obviously, belated and the petitioner has not been able to explain when he came to be in possession of invoice dated 24.11.2008 because this purchase is not averred to have not been made by him from the indicated son of the petitioner. 7. In the light of foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that the petition has to be disallowed and it is ordered accordingly. The impugned order granted by the learned Rent Controller shall stand affirmed. -------------