JUDGMENT : SANGEET LODHA, J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 8.12.16 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar, rejecting an application preferred by the petitioner seeking leave to amend the reply to the petition. 2. The respondent-landlord preferred a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from a commercial premise inter alia on the grounds of will full damage caused to the premises and raising of constructions without permission which has materially altered the premises. 3. The petition is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto, taking the stand that the space measuring 4 ft. in the back of the premises lying vacant was given by the respondent-landlord to the petitioner and he has raised construction over the same with the consent of the landlord and for this reason, the rent of the premises i.e. two shops was increased to Rs.450/- each. The petitioner has denied the encroachment alleged to have been made upon the open space as also the raising of construction without permission. 4. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner preferred an application seeking leave to amend the reply for inclusion of an additional para stating that the receipt of the rent for Rs.900/- issued itself is acceptance of the fact that additional space was provided to the petitioner by the landlord and he has raised construction with the permission of landlord. 5. The application preferred has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal observing that the stand sought to be taken by way of amendment could have been incorporated by the petitioner in the reply already filed and the application appears to have been preferred so as to delay the proceedings. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that on account of the inadvertent error, the plea sought to be taken was not incorporated in the reply. Learned counsel submitted that for the complete and effective decision of the matter, the plea sought to be taken by way of amendment, is absolutely necessary and therefore, the Rent Tribunal has committed apparent error in disallowing the amendment prayed for. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 8. Undoubtedly, the court may allow either party to alter or amend its pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and on such terms as may be just. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 8. Undoubtedly, the court may allow either party to alter or amend its pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and on such terms as may be just. It is guiding principle of amendment that all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties to any proceedings shall be generally allowed. 9. As noticed herein above, the petitioner has already taken the stand in the reply that the open space in the back of the premises was given by the landlord and he has raised construction over the same with the permission of the landlord. That apart, the specific stand taken by the petitioner in the reply is that at the time of the additional space being provided and the construction being raised with the consent of the landlord, the rent of the premises was enhanced to Rs.900/-. Suffice it to say that the plea sought to be taken by the petitioner by way of amendment stands already incorporated in the reply to the petition in different words. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, the amendment sought for by the petitioner is absolutely unnecessary and thus, the finding arrived by the Rent Tribunal that the application seeking amendment of the reply appears to have been filed by the petitioner just to delay the proceedings, cannot be faulted with. 10. In view of the discussion above, the judicial discretion exercised by the Rent Tribunal in refusing the leave to amend the reply, as prayed for, by the petitioner, does not suffer from any jurisdictional so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the result, the petition fails; it is hereby dismissed in limine.