JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 6th August, 2010 whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the application filed by the landlord and permitted him to place certain documents on record. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Sukrit Raj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC such permission could not have been granted at this stage. 3. At the outset, it may be noticed that only principles of Code of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings under the Rent Act and unless made specifically applicable, the provisions of CPC are not applicable in Rent proceedings. The constraints of time in filing written statement, documents etc. are not principles, but specific procedure of the Code which may not be applicable to Rent proceedings unless it is specifically made applicable by the Legislature. 4. Even otherwise, the learned Rent Controller has only exercised jurisdiction vested under law. This Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere in the order of the learned Trial Court, unless the order is wrong, the same is perverse or the learned Trial Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it or has exercised jurisdiction in a manner which is totally perverse. This Court in CMPMO No. 65 of 2010 titled as Jai Chand Thakur Vs. Sat Pal Chauhan & Anr., decided on 23.2.2011 has clearly held that powers under Section 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be used to correct every mistake of the learned Trial Court. Therefore, in my opinion this petition is not maintainable and is rejected accordingly. No costs.