ORDER : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. Order dated 04.01.2017 passed in Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2014 by which the application seeking amendment in the written statement has been declined, has been challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition. 2. Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2014 was instituted by one Binita Singh and Satyendra Singh. Petitioner is the sole defendant in the eviction suit. Plaintiff No. 2 is the brother-in-law of plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiffs have pleaded that the plaintiff No. 1 is the absolute owner of a shop in a portion of the building situated over Plot No. 177 within Khata No. 37, corresponding to Municipal Ward No. 8, Holding No. 55/A/90 within Jugsalai Municipality commonly known as Mahabir Singh Market Complex. They have pleaded that the defendant is in occupation of a shop room in the said market complex and paying rent @ Rs. 625/- per month. The defendant is running a business in the name and style of ‘Pintu Textiles’ in the said shop. Plaintiff No. 2 used to realize rent on behalf of the plaintiff No. 1 from the defendant and issue rent receipt to the defendant over which defendant's son namely, Maninder Singh used to put his signature on the back side of the counter-foil of the rent receipt. The suit was instituted on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement on 03.12.2014. The defendant has pleaded that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and, in fact, the land over which the suit property is situated was originally held by Raja Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhawal Deo as landlord. The said ex-landlord through Raja Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhawal Deo as ex-proprietor of Pargana Dhabhum by a registered deed of lease dated 11.09.1947 granted Haat to Dhalbhum Traders & Industries Limited. For realizing rent from Dhalbhum Traders & Industries Limited, Jugsalai Notified Area Committee instituted Money Suit No. 11/4/62/63. 3. Mr. The said ex-landlord through Raja Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhawal Deo as ex-proprietor of Pargana Dhabhum by a registered deed of lease dated 11.09.1947 granted Haat to Dhalbhum Traders & Industries Limited. For realizing rent from Dhalbhum Traders & Industries Limited, Jugsalai Notified Area Committee instituted Money Suit No. 11/4/62/63. 3. Mr. Rahul Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a serious dispute on the nature of payment made by the defendant to the plaintiff No. 2 inasmuch as, the defendant has pleaded that the payment was in the nature of toll and not rent for the shop occupied by the defendant still, the learned trial court has dismissed the application for amendment in the written statement holding that the defendant used to pay rent to the plaintiff No. 2. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that finding recorded by the trial Judge is premature and it would seriously prejudice trial in Title Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2014. 4. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, the learned counsel for the respondents, however, narrating the proceeding in the suit which would disclose several adjournments taken by the defendant, contends that the facts sought to be incorporated in the written statement through amendment were within the knowledge of the defendant, which after a specific issue on the nature of Dhalbhum Market was dismissed, cannot be incorporated. The proposed amendment is another way of keeping the said issue alive in the eviction suit. Further contention is that in an eviction suit, title of the parties cannot be adjudicated and while so, the proposed amendment apparently is only a dilatory tactics which has rightly not been permitted by the trial Judge. 5. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC provides that amendment in the pleadings can be permitted at any stage by the trial court, however, proviso to Rule 17 mandates that amendment in the pleading shall not be allowed after the trial has commenced. This statutory prohibition, however, has one exception. If the court comes to a conclusion that inspite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial, the amendment in the pleading can be allowed. By now, it is well-settled that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is mandatory. In “North Eastern Railway Admn. v. Bhagwan Das” reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: 16. By now, it is well-settled that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is mandatory. In “North Eastern Railway Admn. v. Bhagwan Das” reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: 16. “Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil which still holds the fields, it was held that all amendments out to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side; and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs.” 6. A bare perusal of application dated 11.08.2016 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC would disclose that the defendant has failed to aver that the facts which are sought to be incorporated in the written statement were not within his knowledge. The plaintiffs have pleaded that these facts were well within the knowledge of the defendant at the time he filed the written statement still, he did not incorporate these facts in his written statement. Evidently, it was a conscious decision of the defendant not to plead these facts in the written statement. Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC thus puts a bar on taking these amendment, in such situation, on record. On the question of trial court adjudicating merits of the matter, suffice would be to indicate that any finding at interlocutory stage is not conclusive. Moreover, in the eviction suit, in which the parties would lead documentary as well as oral evidence, the alleged finding recorded by the trial Judge in its order dated 04.01.2017 that defendant has been paying rent to plaintiff No. 2 is meaningless. 7. With the above clarification, the writ petition stands dismissed.