JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against order dated 26.8.15 of Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, whereby an application preferred by the respondent seeking leave to amend the petition, stands allowed. 2. The respondent preferred a petition under Section 18 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act") seeking injunction against the petitioner not to dispossess him from the rented premises without due process of law. 3. The respondent preferred an application seeking leave to amend the petition stating that before submission of report by the Commissioner appointed by the court for local investigation on 17.9.14, the rented premises was demolished by the petitioner herein using JCB. Accordingly, while seeking incorporation of necessary facts in this regard, the petitioner sought incorporation of additional prayer seeking directions to the respondent to reconstruct and hand over the possession of the rented premises to the petitioner. 4. The application has been allowed by the Rent Tribunal. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that while passing the order impugned, the Rent Tribunal has not assigned any reason for allowing the amendment prayed for. Learned counsel submitted that the petition was filed by the respondent seeking injunction and the same cannot be converted into a petition under Section 11 of the Act for restoration of possession. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the respondent had voluntarily surrendered the possession of the disputed premises and the facts sought to be incorporated in the petition cannot be said to be based on subsequent event. 6. It is to be noticed that initially the petition was filed by the respondent seeking injunction against the petitioner not to dispossess him from the premises in question without due process of law. A perusal of the application seeking leave to amend the petition reveals that the respondent has specifically averred that during the pendency of the petition, before submission of the report by the Commissioner appointed by the court for local investigation, the premises was demolished by the petitioner by using JCB and thus, the facts sought to be incorporated in the petition are apparently based on subsequent event. The correctness of the averments sought to be incorporated by the respondent by way of amendment can always be controverted by the petitioner by filing a counter thereto. The correctness of the averments sought to be incorporated by the respondent by way of amendment can always be controverted by the petitioner by filing a counter thereto. Obviously, at this stage, the stand of the petitioner that the averments sought to be incorporated are not based on subsequent event and as a matter of fact, the possession of the premises has already been surrendered by the respondent, cannot be accepted as correct. 7. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has not yet filed reply to the petition and thus, at this initial stage, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, so as to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings, the discretion exercised by the Rent Tribunal in allowing the amendment as prayed for, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******