JUDGMENT ORDER Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 22.4.2017 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur (''the Tribunal''), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC r/w Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, has been rejected. 2. The petitioner for eviction was filed by the respondent-Trust inter-alia indicating requirement of the premises for setting up a dispensary and library. During the pendency of the proceedings, after the written statement was filed by the petitioner, an application was filed by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 1(3) CPC for taking on record certain documents, which pertained to the other proceedings initiated by the respondent-Trust against Riyaz Ali, Balveer Singh and Narendra Singh, wherein order for eviction was passed/matter was decided by mutual agreement between the parties, the said application was allowed by order dated 14.12.2016. 3. Whereafter, the present application was filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the written statement essentially for alleging facts pertaining to the documents, which had already been taken on record. 4. The Tribunal, by its order dated 22.4.2017 came to the conclusion that the facts sought to be alleged by way of amendment were not necessary, and the amendment was not required for just disposal of the case. However, it was observed by the Tribunal that the documents based on which the amendment is being sought the said documents are all certified copies of the court proceedings and are on record regarding which the petitioner would have opportunity to cross-examine the landlord/witnesses and based on the said finding, the application was rejected. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, inasmuch as, mere taking on record of the documents is not sufficient unless the petitioner makes specific allegations in this regard in the reply and therefore, the application was required to be allowed by the Tribunal. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 7. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 7. By order dated 14.12.2016 (wrongly indicated as order dated 14.5.2016 in the impugned order), the Tribunal had allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 1(3) CPC, whereby several documents pertaining to the litigation launched against Riyaz Ali, Balveer Singh and Narendra Singh by the respondent-Trust were taken on record. It is based on the said documents that the petitioner was seeking to amend the pleadings. The purpose of the petitioner essentially is to establish that the requirement as alleged in the eviction petition stood satisfied with passing of the order/judgment in the case of Riyaz Ali, Balveer Singh and Narendra Singh. With taking on record of the documents, which are certified copies of the court proceedings and the observations of the Tribunal that the petitioner would be free to use the said documents for cross-examination of the landlord/witnesses, the purpose of the petitioner would stand fulfilled and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the application seeking amendment does not call for any interference. 8. The observations made by the Tribunal regarding the nature of documents, which are available on record, shall not come in way of the Tribunal in finally deciding the proceedings. 9. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.