An amendment to a written statement should be allowed if it does not change the nature of the defense, does not amount to a withdrawal of admission, and does not cause injustice to the other side.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code ) is directed aginst the judgment and order dated 20th July, 1984 of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi dismissing the petitioner s application for leave to amend the written statement.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY these are the facts. The plaintiff-respondent on 12th October, 1981 filed a suit for possession and recovery of damages against the petitioner. The plaintiff in the plaint has alleged that he is the owner of property No. 3089, Mohalla Dassan, Hauz Qazi, Delhi, that Har Devi, widow of Shri Ram Lal had been a tenant in respect of the portion shown red in the plan on a monthly rent of Rs. 5. 56 for residential purposes, that she died in 1978, that the tenancy of Smt. Har Devi was terminated during her life time, that she left behind only one son i. e. the defendant as her legal heir and that he has no right to inherit the tenancy.

( 3 ) THE petitioner-defendant in his written statement had admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the house, that Smt. Har Devi widow of Ram Lal was a tenant in respect of the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 5. 56 for residential purposes, that she died in 1978. The trial court framed various issues on 7th April, 1982 to the effect, whether the tenancy of Har Devi was terminated during her life time ; whether the defendant has paid all arears of rent and has been paying regularly to the plaintiff. No evidence has been led by any of the parties. On 14th March, 1983 the petitioner-defendant made an application for leave to amend the written statement. He alleged that originally the premises in suit were taken on rent 50 years ago by Shri Ram Lal, his father from L. Jyoti Pershad, father of the plaintiff. He died in 1958 leaving behind his widow Smt. Har Devi and his son, the defendant. He alleged that he came into possession of all the original rent receipts earliest being that of the year 1943 and the latest of the year 1957 all in the name of his father issued by late Jyoti Pershad, father of the plaintiff. He therefore proposed to amend the plaint by raising the following preliminary objection :

"preliminary objection: 2. That the fact of the entire matter is and which has also been throughout in the knowledge of the plaintiff/landlord that originally the tenancy premises were taken on rent some 50 years ago or more by Shri Ram Lal deceased father of the defendant from late Shri L. Jyoti Pershad, father of the plaintiff. Shri Sham Lal died in or about the year 1958 leaving behind his widow Smt. Har Devi and his son the defendant. On the death of Shri Ram Lal his widow and his son both inherited his tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises as co-tenants having unity of possession and not unity to title. All the right, title and interest of Shri Ram Lal tenant since deceased vested in both of them under the provisions of section 19 (b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The defendant was at all material time and is still continues to be in occupation of the tenancy premises in his own right as a tenant being an heir of his deceased father Shri Ram Lal. "the plaintiff on 16th May, 1984 made another application for correction of the name in the proposed amendment. He said that for the words sham Lal the words ram Lal be substituted in the proposed amendment and in various paragraphs of the application for leave to amend the written statement. This application for correction has not been contested.

( 4 ) THE application for amendment of the written statement has been contested on the ground that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the defence, that it amounts to withdrawal of admission, that it would prejudice the plaintiff. The trial court by the impugned judgment dismissed the application holding that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the defence, that defendant wanted to raise a different plea in the garb of amendment and that it amounted to withdrawal o