2. In Civil Revision No. 434 of 1968, the plaintiffs-non-petitioners filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitioner on 28th February, 1967 with the allegation that the construction of the house was completed in February, 1961 and as such the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act (hereinafter called the Act) did not apply to it. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds and also stated that the house had been constructed in the year 1959 and the provisions of the Act applied to it. On 3rd January, 1968, after the case had been adjourned several times the plaintiffs sought leave of the court to amend the plaint in order to take an additional ground for eviction i.e., default in the payment of rent for more than six months by the defendant with effect from 1st October, 1966 to January, 1968. The learned Civil Judge, Jaipur City allowed the amendment application and hence this revision application by the defendant.

3. In Civil Revision No. 470 of 1968 the plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for ejectment in the Court of the Munsif, Jaipur West against the defendant in November, 1966 on the ground that he had made material alterations in the leased property and has done substantial damage to it.

4. The defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement on 24th February, 1967. After the case had been adjourned several times the plaintiff submitted an application for leave to amend the plaint on 19th December, 1967 under order 6 R. 17 to enable him to take an additional ground for eviction i.e., the default in payment of rent for six months during the pendency of the suit. The learned Munsif allowed the amendment application on 24th May, 1968 and hence this revision application by the defendant.

5. Leave to amend is granted as a general rule so as to determine the real question in controversy between the parties to be realised on the pleadings. But an important exception to this rule is that the amendment will not be allowed if it causes an injury to the opposite party which cannot be compensated for by costs. Amendment shall not be allowed where the opposite party is deprived of any defence which would be open to it if fresh suit is brought against it on the new cause of action. Here the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases is that if the leave to amend is given to the plaintiff the defendants will be deprived of the protection from eviction provided to them by sub fee. 4 of sec. 13 of the Act. It is contended that where a tenant has incurred forfeiture due to non-payment of rent and a suit for eviction is filed against him on the ground set forth in clause(l) of sub-sec. (i) of sec. 13 with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub-section, the tenant has got another chance of being saved from eviction if he deposits or offers to deposit arrears of rent together with interest and costs of the suit on the first date of hearing which according to the learned counsel is the date on which the defendant is summoned to appear. But in these cases the first date of hearing has already passed and the defendants therefore cannot take advantage of the aforesaid provision and shall thus be deprived of the defence which they could have taken if a fresh suit has been filed against them by the plaintiff on the new cause of action i.e.,, defaults made during the pendency of the suit.

6. On the other hand it. is urged on behalf of the non-petitioners that the first date of hearing mentioned in sub-sec. 4 of sec. 13 is not the date fixed for the return of summons but is that date on which the court applies its mind to the facts of the case which according to them normally is the date when issues are framed. It is urged that in both these cases issues have not yet been framed and as such it is still open