K.Kannan, J.

1. The main case in C.R. No. 951 of 2009 is posted to 20.07.2009. The case is advanced suo motu and with consent of both parties, the main as well as the application are disposed of.

2. The application C.M. No. 7247-CII of 2009 is for grant of stay of the proceedings and in the alternative for preponment of the date of hearing. Having regard to the fact that the case still has been directed to be preponed and the case is being decided, the application for stay is dismissed as unnecessary.

3. The revision is against the order dismissing an application for amendment moved by the tenant for making counter-claim to the statement already filed. The counter-claim was purported to be for recovery of the amount alleged to have been paid in excess by the tenant to the landlord. The Rent Controller dismissed it relying on the provision in Section 7 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act stating that such a right must be exercised within six months and that further the application itself was belated.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while adverting to the reasoning points out that the period of six months must be understood as a time, which if invoke