( 1 ) THIS second appeal under Section 39 of the unamended Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is filed by the appellant-tenant against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 12-10-1977. The brief facts are as follows.

( 2 ). The second floor of premises bearing no. 4564, Ward no. XIII. Deputy Ganj, Delhi were let oat to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 43. 00. The respondent filed a petition under Section 14 (l) (h) of the Act for eviction for the appellant on the ground that he had acquired another resi dential house in School Block, Shakarpur Extension, Delhi. The appellant filed his written statement and denied that he bad acquired the premises at Shakarpur Extension. Delhi. He however stated that he had purchased premises in Abadi Malikpur Chhawani, Civil Lines Delhi. The appellant however contended that the said premises were of commercial nature inas- much as it consisted of one shop and one room behind the said shop. The appellant, therefore, contended that he had not acquired vacant possession of a residence within the meaning of Section 14 (l) (h) of the Act. The respondent, therefore, amended the petition incorporating the plea that the appellant had acquired residential accommodation in Abadi Malikpur Chhawani, Civil Lines, Delhi and, therefore, had disentitled himself to the protection of the Act. The amendment was allowed. The Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the Controller) considered the question of acquisition of residence of the appellant in respect of both the above mentioned premises. The Controller came to the conclusion that the accom- modation at Malikpur Chhawani, Civil Lines, Delhi is of residential nature consisting of one shop and two rooms alongwith open court-yard. The Controller further held that the question of suitability of the said accom- modation was not required to be gone into once it was proved that the tenant bad acquired another residence and accordingly he allowed the petition and ordered eviction of the appellant under Section 14 (l) (b) of the Act. An appeal was filed by the appellant tenant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its impugned order dismissed the appeal. Before the Tribunal it was contended by the tenant that the house located in Abadi Malikpur Chhawani, Civil Lines, Delhi was constructed on land belonging to Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) and the Corporation had demolished the said structure because the construction thereon was unauthorised. The appellant, therefore, submitted that since he ceases to be in possession of the said house, he still continues to enjoy the protection under the Act. The Tribunal did not allow the appellant to go beyond the pleadings and observed that the evidence has to be confined on the pleas taken in the pleadings. The Tribunal further observed that the plea that the appellant cannot be said to have acquired another residential house in his own right as be was duped by the previous owner Mohan Singh, could not be raised because no such plea was sought to be taken by amending the written statement. The Tribunal further reiterated that the premises at Malikpur Chhawani, Civil Lines, Delhi were residential premises consisting of one shop and two rooms and open court-yard etc. Being aggrieved by this judgment of the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the present second appeal. Alongwith the appeal, the appellant has also filed an application (CM 1939/ 77) under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement. In the said application, it is prayed that the appellant bepermitted to amend para 18 (a) (2) of the written statement urging the ground that the premises at Maiikpur Chhawni, Civil Lines, Delhi had been sold by Maman Singh to the appellant by practising fraud and have since been demolished by the Corporation and are not available fo