JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi, J. – Heard Sri. Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. This revision is preferred against the order dated 11.5.2016 passed by Addl. Judge, Small Causes Court, FTC, Court no.4, Muzaffarnagar in SCC Suit no. 4 of 2009 rejecting an amendment application filed by the revisionist/defendant. 3. Brief facts are as under: The opposite party filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent etc on the small cause side of the jurisdiction on 4.3.2009 alleging the revisionist to be a tenant of the shop since July 1992 at a rental of Rs. 365/- per month + taxes; that rent was mutually enhanced to Rs. 500/- per month w.e.f, October 1992 and that rent paid only upto March 2005 and no amount has been paid since thereafter. The plaint also alleged that in October 2007 on account of mutual understanding between the parties, rent was further enhanced to Rs. 620/- per month, w.e.f, 2007. It finally alleged that the revisionist/tenant is in arrears of almost 31 months since April 2005 to October 2007 @ Rs. 500/- per month, amounting to Rs. 15,500/- and since November 2007 till December 2008, i.e, 14 months @ Rs. 620/- per month amounting to Rs. 8680/- in all amounting to Rs. 24180/- + mesne profit @ Rs. 1000/- per month, which remains unpaid despite a registered quit notice dated 14.1.2009, hence the suit. 4. The suit was contested by filing a written statement, wherein it was stated that initially the rental was Rs. 365/- per month, but on 15.10.1992 on account of mutual understanding, same was enhanced to Rs. 500/- per month on the ground that the revisionist/tenant would be a perpetual tenant and that rent has been paid upto November 2008, but no rent receipt has been issued by the opposite party to the revisionist since April 2005 despite repeated request. 5. An application for amendment came to be filed (date and year undisclosed) seeking to incorporate a plea that the building in question is a construction of 1984 and not of 1987, so as to make the provisions of the U.P. Act no.13 of 1972 applicable and also for introduction of a plea that initially the shop was taken on rent on 16.7.1992 @ Rs. 365/- per month plus taxes, which continued upto December 2000 and since January 2001, rent was enhanced to Rs. 365/- per month plus taxes, which continued upto December 2000 and since January 2001, rent was enhanced to Rs. 455/- per month, which stands duly paid and that the allegation of the opposite party/land-lord that the rent was agreed to Rs. 500/- since October 1992 is factually incorrect. In support of the proposed amendments certain rent receipts were also filed. 6. The amendment was contested by objections dated 11.5.2016, on the ground that the evidence of the plaintiff is over and since numerous dates, matter is being adjourned at the stage of the defence evidence and that the proposed amendment is malafidely motivated. The court below vide order dated 11.5.2016 rejected the amendment, which is impugned herein. 7. The proposed amendment is in teeth of the proviso appended to Order-VI Rule 17, which provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Admittedly, trial is in progress since 2009, in which plaintiff’s evidence is over, and the matter is being repeatedly adjourned at the stage of the revisionist/defendant’s evidence. On the alleged due diligence, the only averment is that the rent receipts were earlier not available. In the considered opinion of the Court, the said recital does not amount to exercise of due diligence, as there is no material to indicate as to how, when and where were the rent receipts traced. 8. The order impugned does not suffer from any illegality/impropriety. 9. The revision lacks merit and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.