JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, tenant and respondent No.1-plaintiff-lessor. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.09.2011 whereby the learned trial court has rejected the amendment application of the defendant-petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 , Civil Procedure Code in a suit for eviction by which the defendant-lessee sought to amend his written statement at the stage of beginning of defence evidence seeking to include the pleading relating to joint ownership of the suit premises besides the lessor- Kishore Kumar, by other family members viz. Bhanwar Lal and Amritlal. 3. Learned trial court has rejected the said application on the ground of delay as according to proviso of Order 6, Rule 17 , Civil Procedure Code, which permits such amendment only before the trial begins, namely, issues are framed in the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant, Mr. Sandeep Shah, relying upon a decision of Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Nanalal Girdharlal & Anr. v. Gulamnabi Jamalbhai Motorwala & Ors. reported in AIR 1973 Gujarat 131 (V. 60 C. 19) (Para 11) submitted that if the amendment is not allowed then the defendant lessee would be precluded from showing that his landlord was not the exclusive owner of the leased property but was only one of the co-owners; and that notices to quit given by him is, therefore, not sufficient to determine the lis. 4. On the ground of delay in applying for amendment, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same deserves to be condoned in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh reported in (2009) 10 SCC 626 : (AIR 2009 Supreme Court (Supp) 2671) and in the case of Usha Balasaheb Swami & Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors. reported in (2007) 5 SCC 602 : ( AIR 2007 SC 1663 ) . 5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Parihar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff-respondent relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme in the case of FGP Ltd. v. Saleh Hooseini Doctor & Anr. v. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors. reported in (2007) 5 SCC 602 : ( AIR 2007 SC 1663 ) . 5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Parihar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff-respondent relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme in the case of FGP Ltd. v. Saleh Hooseini Doctor & Anr. reported in 2010 (1) CCC 14 (SC) : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2597) urged that question of title is absolutely irrelevant and notwithstanding the fact that lessor-Kishore Kumar was receiving the rent regularly from the defendant tenant; the plaintiff had also produced registered partition deed on record with his plaint under which got exclusive right over the suit premises, therefore, there was no question of challenging the notice to quit on the ground now sought to be raised by seeking amendment in the written statement. Therefore, not only on the ground of delay, the amendment being wholly unnecessary and irrelevant was rightly rejected by the learned trial court. 6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order and reasons given therein, this Court is satisfied that amendment sought by the defendant-tenant in his written statement was neither necessary nor called for in the present case. Admittedly, the issue relating to title is not relevant in eviction matters at all either under the Rent Control Act or under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice to quit under Section 106 of T.P. Act given by the lessor- Kishore Kumar in the present case, cannot be said to be invalid even if it is found from the registered "Patta" produced on record by the plaintiff with the plaint, that original "Patta" was originally issued in the name of three joint owners. Since, the lease rent in question was admittedly received by the Kishore Kumar, the contention of the defendant-tenant that notice was not validly given, can be examined by the learned trial court, irrespective of the pleadings in the form of amendment, as sought by the defendant. Therefore, the question of delay in filing the amendment application pales into insignificance and otherwise also, such amendment is not relevant to the controversy involved in the present case and, therefore, the learned trial court was justified in rejecting the said amendment application. 7. Therefore, the question of delay in filing the amendment application pales into insignificance and otherwise also, such amendment is not relevant to the controversy involved in the present case and, therefore, the learned trial court was justified in rejecting the said amendment application. 7. This Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with all interlocutory orders passed by the learned trial court; and even if some contention of some significance is raised by the parties before the learned trial court and decided against them, the same can always be raised against the final judgment of the trial court before the appellate court and Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not meant of correcting every error or mistake, minor or major, in the trial, unless a serious miscarriage of justice is seen by the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and this is well settled proposition of law, as settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in the catena of judgments. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same deserves to be dismissed and no interference with the order impugned, under Article 227 is called for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******