( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Application is directed against the decision refusing to grant amendment in written statement of the petitioner, who is the original appellant-defendant. Relevant facts giving rise to the petition may be stated thus :-

( 2 ) RESPONDENT herein is the original plantiff, who instituted a Regular Civil suit No. 127 of 1989 against the petitioner herein for recovery of possession of the suit property on the ground that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord-plantiff. After the trial, the decres for possession was passed against the defendant-petitioner, by judgment and decree dated January, 30, 1990.

( 3 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the said eviction decree, preferred Civil appeal No. 23 of 1990 in the Court of the District Judge, Kheda. The petitioner submitted an application in the said appeal at Exh. 37, purporting to be under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking permission to amend the written statement, which was, at Exh. 10 in the suit. The petitioner proposed the written statement to be amended to the effect that the final plot No. 537 admeasuring 840 sq. metres along with 103 sq. metres of Final Plot No. 536 has been leased by the plantiff-respondent to the petitioner. Out of the total area of the final plot No. 536, in the area of about 280 sq. metres, there existed constructed property. It was contended that the plaintiff-respondent deliberately omitted to mention about the construction of the suit land with a view to bring the case within the scope of Sec. 13 (1) (i) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short "the Bombay Rent Act" ). The petitioner also contended that by the proposed amendment, no prejudice was likely to be caused to the other side, as the proposed amendment would not introduce any new defence. The learned Assistant judge, Nadiad, who disposed of the said amendment application Exh. 37, by his judgment and order dated April 6, 1993, rejected the application Exh. 37, holding that the amendent would have the effect of permitting the defendent to introduce a new defence because the plantiff has got a decree for eviction under Sec. 13 (1) (i) of the Bombay Rent Act and as such if the defendent-appellant is permitted to amend the written statement, his case was likely to be within the scope of Sec. 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rent Act. The learned Judge also held that the amendment would cause great prejudice to the plaintiff who had succeeded in getting the decree for eviction. The Civil Revision Application is filed against the judgment and order rejecting the application Exh. 37 and thereby refusing the amendment.

( 4 ) MR. Dhaval C. Dave, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Judge, by refusing to grant the amendment, has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law, inasmuch as the proposed amendment would not introduce a new defence and the findings of the learned Judge in this behalf are contrary to the facts and evidence of the case. Mr. Dave further submitted that by the proposed amendment, the petitioner intended to place on record the relevant facts which were necessary for the purpose of deciding the real issue in controversy and therefore, even if the same had the effect of brringing the case within the scope and purview of Sec. 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rent Act, it could not be regarded as a ground for rejecting the application for amendment. Mr. A. J. Patel, the learned advocate for the respondent, has, on the other hand, supported the impunged judgment and order, urging that it would cause prejudice to the plaintiff-respondent, as the proposed amendment would bring altogether a new defence.

( 5 ) ORDER 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments