ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent/s. 2. The petitioner assails the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Rent Tribunal whereby the application moved by the petitioner-defendant under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2001') for seeking amendment in the written statement, has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while preparing the case for final arguments the defendant had stated that the original application was not maintainable as the paid up capital of Vijay Solvex Limited of which the defendants was one of the units, was almost Rs.3,20,19,000/- above Rs.1 crore and therefore, the original application itself was not maintainable. Accordingly, an amendment was sought in the written statement. Learned counsel submits that the amendment in the written statement ought to have been allowed and the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the application. Learned counsel submits that additional defence or amendment in defence can always be taken up at any stage and the same ought to be allowed. 4. Learned counsel relies on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Groupe Chimique Tunisien SA Versus M/s Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corpn. Ltd. reported in AIR 2006 SC 2422 , to submit that on account of mistake or wrong understanding of law, party is not barred for changing its stand subsequently nor principle of estoppel can apply. Learned counsel relies on judgment passed in case of Andhra Bank Versus ABN Amro Bank N.V. & Ors. reported in 2007 (6) SCC 167 to submit that delay in filing the application is not a reasonable ground to refuse the prayer for amendment. Learned counsel also relies on the judgment in case of Surender Kumar Sharma Versus Makhan Singh reported in 2009 (10) SCC 626 , to submit that delay in moving application for amendment is not liable to be rejected on that count alone. Learned counsel also relies on judgment passed in case of Sneh Gupta Versus Devi Sarup & Ors. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 194 , to submit that the question of estoppel and/or election as also the doctrine of approbate or reprobate, whereas reliance has been placed, has exceptions, one of them being that there is no estoppel against the statute. 5. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 194 , to submit that the question of estoppel and/or election as also the doctrine of approbate or reprobate, whereas reliance has been placed, has exceptions, one of them being that there is no estoppel against the statute. 5. Learned counsel submits that the question raised by way of amendment is purely legal question which does not require examination on facts and therefore the same ought to have been allowed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- landlord submits that the application moved by the landlord is for eviction of residential property and is pending since 2008. Learned counsel submits that an application was moved by the respondents-applicants for fixing of the rent under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 wherein on 25.11.2011 an order was passed of enhancement of rent to Rs.975/- per month under the Act of 2001 and at that stage too no objection had been taken up by the defendant-petitioner. The order was accepted and the revised rent was being paid. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/s submits that the contention of the petitioner is that he has come to know only now at the stage of final arguments about the paid up capital of Vijay Solvex Limited being Rs.3,20,19,000/- from 2008-09 from the officer who was in-charge of the proceedings, namely Rishipal Singh is also falsified from the fact that Rishipal Singh has been appearing for last four years for recording his evidence. It is stated that he has taken four years only for getting his evidence recorded whereafter his case has been pending for almost one year for final arguments and now an application has been moved just for the purpose of delaying the proceedings. It is submitted that on merits also that so far as Vijay Solvex Limited is concerned, the same has got nothing to do so far as the present application under Act of 2001 is concerned as the eviction has sought against its unit which is using the premises for residential purposes and the unit is not a public limited company which is registered under the Factories Act and is a factory. The respondent/s requires the premises for their personal use and the application is wholly motivated with the purpose to delay the proceedings. 8. I have considered the submissions. 9. The respondent/s requires the premises for their personal use and the application is wholly motivated with the purpose to delay the proceedings. 8. I have considered the submissions. 9. This Court finds that the Rent Tribunal has examined the contents of the application and found that the question raised by way of seeking an amendment is a mixed question of fact as well as law. The Court will have to see whether the contention raised in the amendment of written statement is factually correct or not and thereafter reached to the conclusion that such defence has not been taken by the petitioner all throughout the proceedings after ten years of the proceedings having remained pending. The application has been moved for raising an objection in a case where residential premises is the question for eviction. Keeping in view the same, the Tribunal has rejected the application. 10. In the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Rent Tribunal does not warrant any interference as the judgments which have been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner would have no application to the present case as it is not a case where the commercial premises are to be vacated. The issue regarding paid up capital of Vijay Solvex Limited as raised by the petitioner would require fresh evidence whether the residential accommodation was with Vijay Solvex Limited or with the Jaipur Glass and Potteries. In the opinion of this Court totally new plea which the petitioner wants to take contradictory to the earlier plea, such cannot be allowed. 11. The very purpose of the Act of 2001 is to decide the matter expeditiously and provide relief to the tenant as well as to the landlord expeditiously. The amendment sought therefore is liable to be rejected. 12. In view thereof, the order passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 13. All pending applications also stand disposed of.