Judgment Mr. Ramendra Jain, J. (Oral):-Through this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution ofIndia, tenants have laid challenge to order dated 18.07.2019 (Annexure P-12) of the Appellate Authority, whereby their application under Order 6Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of written statementhas been dismissed. 2. Briefly, respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 13 ofthe East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the petitioners onfollowing grounds: - “(i) Petitioners have made material additions andalterations, including removal of shutter from point A toB and shifting the same at point C to D covering entireverandah in front of the demised shop without consentand raising sheds by digging and putting heavy load onthe wall from point E to H shown in the site plan, toimpair and diminish the value and utility of the demisedproperty. (ii) Petitioners have also demolished two bathrooms of thesize 59' x 6' and converted the same into their office andalso constructed first floor without his permission. (iii) Petitioners have also lifted floor of the demised shop(showroom) without consent and have violatedprovisions of the Rent Act by constructing sheds andfirst floor in the vacant area, which has obstructed lightand ventilation in the demised shop. 3. The Rent Controller, after due notice to the petitioners, holdingtrial, accepted the petition of respondent-landlord vide order dated10.03.2016 (Annexure P-7). 4. Being aggrieved, petitioners approached the AppellateAuthority along with two applications i.e. one under Order 6 Rule 17 CPCfor amendment of written statement and another under Order 41 Rule 27CPC to lead additional evidence to prove letter (Annexure P-3) to plead thatrespondent-landlord had consented for the aforesaid additions andalterations done by the petitioners. 5. Appellate Authority, after hearing both the sides, videimpugned order dated 18.07.2019 (Annexure P-12) dismissed application ofthe petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC foramendment of written statement. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayana Swamy and sons and others, (2009)10 Supreme Court Cases 84 and Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited v. Manohar Lal, (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 212, inter aliacontends that amendment sought in the written statement is very muchmaterial to effectively adjudicate legal rights of the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayana Swamy and sons and others, (2009)10 Supreme Court Cases 84 and Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited v. Manohar Lal, (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 212, inter aliacontends that amendment sought in the written statement is very muchmaterial to effectively adjudicate legal rights of the parties. AppellateAuthority has failed to appreciate that letter (Annexure P-3), which thepetitioners want to plead and introduce in their pleadings, could not bementioned earlier on account of resignation of their Chief Executive Sh.S.K. Agarwal long back before filing of the eviction petition against thepetitioners. 7. Having given thoughtful consideration to the abovesubmissions, this Court finds the instant revision completely devoid of anymerit for the reasons to follow. 8. The very basis of eviction petition filed by the respondentagainst petitioners was impairment of value and utility of the demised shop(showroom) by making huge additions and alterations. 9. Upon notice, petitioners simply denying the above stand of therespondent-landlord in their written statement, pleaded that no additions andalterations, as alleged, were done by them. Now, by way of amendment,petitioners want to somersault their earlier stand taking altogether contraryplea. Even otherwise, genuineness/authenticity of the letter (Annexure P-3)is completely doubtful inasmuch as it is coming belatedly from the custodyof the petitioners. Therefore, such a document cannot be permitted to bemade basis for de novo trial. It is apparent on the record that petitioners tenant want to fill up a lacuna at the appellate stage, which is not legallypermissible. 10. Appellate Authority has rightly observed that resignation ofChief Executive of the petitioners relates to insignificant aspect of the caseinasmuch as letter (Annexure P-3) was very much in their custody and notthat their Chief Executive had taken it away with him, while leaving thepetitioners. Allowing amendment sought by the petitioners would amountto turning the entire trial de novo. The Rent Controller would take aroundanother five years or considerable time to the peril of the respondent landlord in disposal of the eviction petitioners against the petitioners. 11. More so, it is apparent that petitioners kept on sleeping in agreat slumber and awoke after around three years of passing of evictionorder by the Rent Controller on 10.03.2016 against them and filed instantapplication in the year 2019, though they had preferred appeal in the year2016 itself. 11. More so, it is apparent that petitioners kept on sleeping in agreat slumber and awoke after around three years of passing of evictionorder by the Rent Controller on 10.03.2016 against them and filed instantapplication in the year 2019, though they had preferred appeal in the year2016 itself. This conduct of the petitioners being an afterthought can safelybe declared as a clever device to delay the decision of their appeal/evictionproceedings with a mala fide intention to retain possession of the demisedshop for a maximum period, which they may be able to manage. Nojustifiable reason has been shown to permit amendment in the writtenstatement. 12. This Court while exercising its revisional powers has verylimited jurisdiction, which can only be exercised, (i) when the Courts belowhave acted beyond jurisdiction vested in them or (ii) have not exercised thesame diligently and (iii) have exercised illegally. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to showany such infirmities in the order of the Appellate Authority. 14. Facts and circumstances of the authorities referred to aboverelied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are not identical to thefacts of the present case. Therefore, no benefit of the same can be given tothe petitioners. 15. No question of law much less substantial has been raised in thisrevision. Dismissed. 16. Nothing observed in this order shall effect the decision inapplication of the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, which shall bedecided in accordance with law.