JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. The petitioner-landlord (hereinafter 'the landlord') challenges the order dated 26-2-2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan cum Rent Tribunal Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') dismissing landlord's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the eviction petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders dated 26-2-2014 passed by the Tribunal. 3. An eviction petition under the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the 2001 Act') was filed by the landlord against the non applicant-tenant (hereinafter 'the tenant') inter alia on the ground of the tenant having acquired alternate accommodation adequate for his requirement. It was averred in the eviction petition that the tenant had acquired a shop at Loha Mandi, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur, where from he was engaged in business in the name and style of Virat Iron Store and was therefore liable to be evicted. Reply to eviction petition was filed in the year 2008 specifically denying that the tenant was carrying on any business in the name and style of Virat Iron Store. On the basis of pleadings of the parties issues were framed, evidence was recorded and the matter was fixed for final arguments. 4. At this stage, the landlord moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of eviction petition, stating therein that he had come into possession of a document from the office of Commercial Taxes Officer on 17-1-2013 on the basis of an application moved by the landlord on 7-1-2013 under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 where from it was found that the tenant had a shop at Loha Mandi Sansar Chandra Road Jaipur, where from he was carrying his business in the name and style of Bright Iron Traders. The applicant thus sought amendment of para No.6 of the eviction petition as also the ground (k) where it was earlier stated that the tenant was doing business in the name and style of Virat Iron Store. It was prayed that instead para 6 of the eviction petition deleted and ground (k) thereof be read as the tenant doing business in the name and style of Bright Iron Traders. It was prayed that instead para 6 of the eviction petition deleted and ground (k) thereof be read as the tenant doing business in the name and style of Bright Iron Traders. The application was opposed by the tenant on the ground that it could not be entertained in view of proviso to Rule 17 Order 6 CPC at the belated stage of final arguments in the eviction petition. 5. The Tribunal on consideration of the matter found the amendment sought by the landlord vitiated by lack of due diligence as in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and dismissed the application. Hence this petition. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. Mr. Saini for the landlord has submitted that an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to be liberally addressed as the purpose of adjudication is not mechanical expedited determination, but rendering of real justice between the parties. He submitted that even though the trial in the eviction petition has been concluded and the matter is at stage of final arguments, delays caused by the amendment sought can be compensated with costs. It is submitted that the petition is of the landlord and delay in fact will not prejudice the tenant at all. The Tribunal, counsel submitted, acted mechanically and contrary to justice in dismissing the amendment application only on the ground of delay and stage of the proceedings without anything more. 8. Counsel for the respondent tenant has obviously supported the impugned order and prayed the petition be dismissed. 9. The amendment sought is with regard to a fact of the tenant's own business premises and the name and style of his business. The landlord in his eviction petition in 2007 had averred that the tenant had acquired his own shop and was doing business in the name and style Virat Iron Store. In the year 2008, this averment was denied. In his cross examination in 2009, the landlord had admitted that he had not even visited the shop alleged to be owned by the tenant where from he was alleged to be doing business. The landlord only took steps to make enquiries as to the tenant's alleged shop and business in 2013 following the tenant in his cross examination denying the fact of doing business in the name and style Virat Iron Store. The landlord only took steps to make enquiries as to the tenant's alleged shop and business in 2013 following the tenant in his cross examination denying the fact of doing business in the name and style Virat Iron Store. This aspect of the case to my mind is not conducive to the due diligence of the landlord. The condition in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was to be satisfied for the landlord to be entitled to court's discretion in allowing amendment to pleadings at the stage of final arguments. I am of the view that the conditionality for the exercise of the court's discretion not having been satisfied, the "no prejudice" argument to circumvent the law can be of no avail. In any event, suffering a protracted trial by itself can also constitute prejudice. Further it also deserves to be noticed that an order by a trial court on an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is a discretionary order and where the discretion is not perversely exercised or is not palpably illegal, the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should not upset it. Such a situation obtain in the case at hand. 10. Consequently, I find no force in the petition. Dismissed. Petition Dismissed.