Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 challenges order dated 13.1.2003 passed by the Appellate Authority, Rohtak dismissing the application of the tenant-petitioner seeking amendment of its written statement. The Appellate Authority after referring to the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, `the Code) has recorded the following order :- "A bare perusal of the Rule reproduced above shows that application for amendment is not to be allowed in a routine manner and that amendment can be allowed in such cases where the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence the party could not raise the matter before the commencement of the trial. In this case, the trial court has already decided the ejectment petition. The facts proposed to be placed and contained in paras A, B and C were very much in the knowledge of the applicant at the time of filing the written statement. So far as proposed facts contained in Para D are concerned, the same are vague, because the applicant has not disclosed the date of construction of double story big building at Jhajjar Road. Concealment of date of the construction of the alleged building is definitely with mala fide intention. Disclosure of the date of alleged construction, would have made clear whether the construction was raised before commencement of the trial or after that. It was incumbent on the applicant to come to the Court with clean hands and clear heart. In these circumstances, I hold that the proposed amendment cannot be allowed because the applicant has not been able to establish that he could not take up the proposed pleas despite exercise of due diligence. Our own Honble High Court has ruled in Civil Revision No. 4903 of 2002 in case Smt. Vijay Luxmi etc. v. Shri Kapoor Singh that amendment can be allowed only before commencement of the trial unless the applicant satisfies the Court that he could not raise the proposed plea before commencement of the trial despite exercise of due diligence." 2. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that the law of amendment is very liberal and the landlord-respondent is unlikely to suffer any prejudice if the tenant-petitioner is allowed to carry the amendment in its written statement. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that the law of amendment is very liberal and the landlord-respondent is unlikely to suffer any prejudice if the tenant-petitioner is allowed to carry the amendment in its written statement. He has further pointed out that one opportunity may be given to the tenant-petitioner after the amendment to produce the documentary evidence. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner, I do not find any valid ground to set aside the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority. The Rent Controller has already decided the ejectment petition and certain facts which are sought to be incorporated in the written statement now were well within the knowledge of tenant-petitioner. Other facts have been found to be vague because the tenant-petitioner has failed to disclose the date of construction of double story building at Jhajjar road which is found to be concealment with mala fide intention because it would have revealed whether construction was raised before commencement of the trial or afterwards. I am further of the view that on an earlier occasion, the tenant-petitioner has approached this Court and this Court had dismissed the revision petition against an order passed under Order VI Rule 17 and Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code. The view of this Court expressed in its order dated 10.4.2002 while disposing of Civil Revision No. 1551 of 2002 reads as under :- "I have perused the conclusion drawn by the Addl. District Judge, Rohtak that there is no necessity for the applicant to amend the pleadings or to produce evidence in support thereof because of the admission of the averments made in para 2 of the application noticed above, which have been described in the impugned order as "judicial admission". The conclusions drawn in the impugned order may certainly be to the detriment of the respondent herein; it is, however, difficult to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner Punjab National Bank." In view of the above, it is obvious that the tenant-petitioner is bent upon to misuse the process of this Court for oblique motives which is absolutely unfair. Therefore, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. I refrain from imposing the costs on the tenant-petitioner because it is a Nationalised Bank and a public institution. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.