JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 01.03.2012 passed by court below rejecting petitioner's application seeking amendment in his plaint. 3. One of the paragraph which petitioner intend to incorporate in the plaint would result in placing the building in question outside the purview of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") though in the initial plaint it was not the case of petitioner at all that building in question is not governed by Act, 1972. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that this fact was not in the knowledge of petitioner and, therefore, it could not be stated earlier but he admits that in the amendment application no such averment was made that this fact was not earlier in the knowledge of petitioner. He placed reliance on the Apex Court's decision in Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and sons and others, 2009(1) SCC 84 and contended that the impugned order does not satisfy requirement of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. 5. However, paras 66, 67 and 70 of judgment of Apex Court clearly show that if the application for amendment lacks bona fide or cause prejudice to other side which cannot be compensated or where the averments fundamentally change the nature of case, it should be refused. In the present case it is virtually change of entire context and jurisdiction, if the amendment is allowed. That would enable the petitioner to plead that the building in question is not governed by Act, 1972 which was not his case initially. It would take away the protection available to tenant under Act, 1972. Moreover, the entire proceedings have gone till now by applying Act, 1972. In the present case, even the evidence has already been led whereafter the amendment was sought by petitioner in the plaint. 6. The court below has observed that evidence is already over and in case the amendment is allowed this would result in requiring the parties to lead evidence further to the extent the case will bring itself out of the purview of Act, 1972. This would be contrary to what it was in the earlier proceedings. 6. The court below has observed that evidence is already over and in case the amendment is allowed this would result in requiring the parties to lead evidence further to the extent the case will bring itself out of the purview of Act, 1972. This would be contrary to what it was in the earlier proceedings. Hence all the factors which justify denial of amendment, noticed by Apex Court in Revajeetu Builders and Developers (supra) are attracted in this case. 7. In these circumstances and considering the entire order impugned in this writ petition, I find no manifest error in exercise of power by court below in rejecting petitioner's application. No interference is called for. 8. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed.