JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the amendment application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C.. 3. Admittedly the release application was filed in the year 2010 under section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as P.A. case no. 41 of 2010 (Daya Shankar Singh Vs. Lalla Prasad). The release application was contested by the petitioner-tenant on various grounds, which was allowed on 4.4.2013 and need of the landlord was found genuine. In the pending appeal, namely, Rent Appeal No. 11 of 2014, petitioner tenant had filed amendment application at the stage of argument.The amendments which are sought to be incorporated have been found to be misconceived by the appellate authority under the Rent Control Act and the application was rejected vide order dated 8.5.2015. 4. Challenging the order passed by the appellate authority, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amendment has not been considered in the correct prospective. Certain facts which were not within the knowledge of the petitioner tenant were sought to be brought on record. 5. From a perusal of the amendment application and the order passed by the appellate authority, it is evident that the petitioner has sought to include the argumentable pleadings in paragraphs 9B and 9C of the amendment application. In so far as the contention made in paragraph-9 A of the amendment application is concerned , by way of the same, the petitioner-tenant seeks to take a new plea which is not permissible at the stage of argument as it will change the nature of the proceedings itself.Moreover amendment is highly belated and the fact stated in the amendment application were ought to be within the knowledge of the petitioner. 6. No infirmity is found in the order of the appellate authority.The writ petition is dismissed.