Gokal Chand Mital, J.

1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view the application for the amendment of the replication deserves to be allowed. There are some decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court saying that in such matters supervening facts can always be taken notice of by the Court in deciding the case. In this case, the facts, which came into being after the filing of the ejectment petition, were noticed by the Courts below but they could not be properly projected because of the want of pleadings on behalf of the landlord and for that reason even whole evidence could not come on the record. Keeping that proposition in view, the application for amended of the replication is hereby allowed. The landlord has already filed the amendment replication.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant is right is suggesting that his client may be allowed to file rejoinder to the amended replication so that his client may be able to take the pleas available to him. Since this prayer is reasonable, the learned counsel for the landlord could not seriously oppose it.

3. In this view of the matter, this matter is remitted to the Rent Controller and t