JUDGMENT Indermeet Kaur, J. 1. Allowed subject to just exceptions. CM (M) No. 1194/2011 and CM No. 18950/2011 (for stay) Impugned order is the order dated 9.9.2011 vide which an application filed by the defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of his written statement has been dismissed. Present suit is a suit for possession and recovery of arrears of rent. Defendant was stated to be a tenant in the disputed premises. In the written statement filed by the defendant he had admitted that he is a tenant in the suit premises; in para 2 and 3 of the preliminary objections it had been stated that the plaintiff had illegally in the first week of January 2010 locked the door of the common bath room for which a criminal complaint has been filed; however, the defendant has been paying rent to the plaintiff and in fact had paid rent up to January 2011 which amount has been deposited in the Court. 2. By way of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code the defendant wanted to amend the written statement and take up a plea that the plaintiff was not entitled to rent as he had illegally locked the bathroom and as such the defendant is entitled to a suspension of the rent. The impugned order had rejected this prayer. 3. Record shows that the relationship of landlord and tenant has been admitted; in fact the defendant has admitted and pleaded in his first written statement that the bathroom had illegally been locked by the plaintiff in January 2010; further plea being that he was paying rent to the plaintiff but the plaintiff was not accepting it and right up to January 2011 rent has deposited in the court. The plea now sought to be set up that the defendant is that he is entitled to a suspension of rent in this intervening period because the bath room has been illegally locked; if this prayer is permitted it would prejudicially affect the case of the plaintiff as a new plea is now sought to be incorporated in the written statement that suspension of rent is permissible to the defendant when in the earlier written statement he admitted that he had already paid the rent up to January 2011 for this locked bathroom. In these circumstances the amendment was rightly disallowed. In these circumstances the amendment was rightly disallowed. Reliance by learned Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar, V. (2009) SLT 1 : 3 (2009) CLT 55 (SC) : (2009) 14 SCC 38 and Raj Kumar Guawara through L.Rs. v. M/s. S.K. Sarwagi and Co. Pvt. Ltd., 3 (2009) CLT 155 (SC) : V (2009) SLT 786 : AIR 2008 SC 2303 , is misplaced. There is no doubt that the law of amendment has to be liberally construed and this is a hand maid of procedure; nevertheless if the complexion of the case is changed or by way of an amendment a party is seeking to withdraw an admission which admission had accrued in favour of the plaintiff; such an amendment should be disallowed. Impugned order in no manner suffers from any infirmity. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed