Hon'ble BHANSALI, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners questioning the validity of order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement has been rejected. 2. The respondent landlord filed petition seeking possession of the premises based on bona fide requirement. 3. During the course of cross-examination of PW-1 – Dharmendra Khatri, the fact about his filing income tax returns was accepted by him; whereafter on an application made by the petitioners, the income tax returns were produced by said PW-1, regarding which, he was confronted/cross-examined by the petitioners. 4. The application seeking amendment was filed to bring the said facts, which were disclosed during the course of cross-examination, on record as part of the written statement; the prayer was resisted by the landlord. 5. 4. The application seeking amendment was filed to bring the said facts, which were disclosed during the course of cross-examination, on record as part of the written statement; the prayer was resisted by the landlord. 5. The Tribunal by its impugned order rejected the application, inter alia, observing as under:- ^^vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls vius tokc esa ;g la'kks/ku pkgk gS fd oks izkFkhZ i{k dh ftjg esa u;s dqN rF; vk;s gSaA ysfdu esjs fouez er esa ,slh ckrsa tks fd lk{; dl fo"k; gksrh gS] mls vfHkopu esa tqM+okuk drbZvko';d ugha gksrk gSA izdj.k esa fopkj.kh; iz'u ;g gS fd vk;k izkFkZ dks ;kfpdk esa tks vk/kkj crk;s gSa ml gsrq fookfnr ifjlj dh ;qfä;qä ,oa ln~Hkkfod vko';drk gS vFkok ugha vkSj blds lanHkZ esa vizkFkhZ dk Bksl fojks/k gS vkSj bl fook|d fo"k;d fcUnq esa ;g rF; Hkh lekfgr gS fd vk;k izkFkhZ dks vU; oSdfYid ifjlj miyC/k gS vFkok ugha ;k mldh vko';drk ln~Hkkfod gS ;k ugha\ vkSj izLrkfor la'kks/ku tokc ;kfpdk esa nsus ls Hkh fook|d fo"k; viuh txg cuk gqvk jgrk gSA vizkFkhZ vius tokc ds ek/;e ls ,slk rF; vfHkopuksa esa tqM+okuk pkgrk gS tks ,d lk{; dk fo"k; gS ftlds lanHkZ esa vfHkopuksa esa mudk tqM+okuk tkuk drbZ mfpr o vko';d ugha gSA vizkFkhZ pkgs rks ;fn mls bl fook|d fcUnq ij i'pkr~orhZ dksbZ lk{; izkFkhZ dh vko';drk dks xyr crkus ckcr~ izkIr gqbZ rks okafNr vuqefr ysdj bl fcUnq ij viuh lk{; mlds yacudky esa mUgsa vU; ifjlj viyC/k Fkk tks mudh vko';drk ds fy;s i;kZIr gS bl ckcr~ tokc ;kfpdk esa la'kks/ku dh vuqefr nsuk drbZ mfpr o U;k;laxr ugha gS D;ksafd ;kfpdk izLrqrhdj.k ds oä dh vko';drk egRoiw.kZ fcUnq gksrk gSA** 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the amendment sought was essentially for the determination of issues involved and the Tribunal committed serious error of law in declining the amendment of the written statement. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the application was filed merely with a view to delay the proceedings before the Tribunal and the same was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the application was filed merely with a view to delay the proceedings before the Tribunal and the same was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. It is a strange situation, wherein, normally the evidence is led based on the averments made in the pleading, however, in the present case, the prayer is being made to bring the pleadings in sync with the evidence which has already come on record; the said attempt on the part of petitioners cannot be appreciated; the controversy involved in the petition pertains to the bona fide requirement of the landlord, which has been denied by the petitioners-tenants and the Tribunal while rejecting the application rightly observed that the subject matter of evidence is sought to be included in the evidence, which is not proper. 10. An apprehension has been expressed by the counsel for the petitioners that in absence of specific plea in the written statement, which has been the subject matter of cross-examination by the petitioners based on the income tax returns of PW-1, the Tribunal may refuse to take the same into consideration; the apprehension in view of the observations made by the Tribunal appears to be misplaced. 11. The evidence led apparently is by way of extension of plea raised in the written statement regarding lack of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord and, therefore, also the apprehension is apparently misplaced. 12. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. There is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed. No order as to costs.