ORDER : (Nupur Bhati, J.) This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner-tenant under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, claiming for the following reliefs:- "(a) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the order dated 23.07.2019 (Annex.5) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Rent Case No.02/2011 rejecting the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed in to to as prayed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord filed an application before learned Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar praying for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute while contending that she is having one shop at Nohra no.28, Old Dhanmandi on rent admeasuring 10x15 Feet on Main Road, North side, which was in the ownership of Smt. Savita Kukkar in which the petitioner is doing business in the name of Firm Deewan Singh Harjeet Singh. The respondent through a partition-deed dated 04.06.2010, out of 17x42 Feet portion, got ground-floor of Nohara no.28, admeasuring 17x27 feet facing on main road in her favour through registered gift-deed dated 04.06.2010. The respondent through Registered A/D letter dated 09.07.2010 informed petitioner about her ownership on the disputed premises and also demanded rent in future in her favour, which was duly paid by the petitioner. The respondent showed her bonafide necessity for the shop in-question for running her own business of handicraft items. She also mentions that the adjoining premises admeasuring 13.6 x 15 feet, which is on rent with Jaidev Jain, for that also application for vacation of the premises has been filed separately by her. The respondent, thus, prayed that her application be allowed and vacant possession of the premises be handed-over to her. 3. The petitioner filed reply to application filed by the respondent and denied the averments made therein. 4. Thereafter issues were framed and the evidence started. The respondent filed her affidavit upon which she was cross-examined. 5. During pendency of eviction suit before learned Tribunal, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC on 23.10.2018 for amendment in the eviction suit on the ground that certain facts were mistakenly not brought on record by way of reply filed by him, which are necessary for adjudication of eviction suit and, therefore, the petitioner be permitted to make necessary amendment. The amendment which is sought by way of filing the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC is that the entire premises on the ground-floor except for one shop adjacent to the rented premises is lying vacant, where the respondent can run her business. It is also stated in the application that on the road opening towards West, rented shop of Kaluram Hansraj which is lying vacant and attached garage along with it a total of 25 feet wide and about 33 feet in length from behind is also lying vacant, thus, 25x33 feet on the west side and 13x43.6 feet on north side, the premises are lying vacant. It is submitted in the application that even after availability of such a huge land by the petitioner, no business whatsoever has been started by her till date and, therefore, this proves that in reality there is no intention to start any business. 6. The respondent did not file any reply to the application and thereafter the matter was finally heard by learned Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC was rejected vide order dated 23.7.2019 (Annex.5), hence, this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has wrongly been rejected as the respondent has vacant premises available with her wherein she could run her own business and the shop which is in possession of the petitioner is not required by her for running her business, thus, the plaint for eviction has been filed on false and misleading facts and therefore these new facts of vacant premises being available with the respondent are necessary for proper adjudication of the suit for eviction. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the respondent has not filed any reply to the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, thus, it can be presumed that the other portion of the property is lying vacant with her and she can very well run her business in the vacant premises. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. The learned court below has rejected application of the petitioner on two grounds i.e. firstly that the petitioner has questioned the partition, which occurred between the respondent and her family members and secondly that the filing of application is nothing but a delay tactics adopted. 11. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. The learned court below has rejected application of the petitioner on two grounds i.e. firstly that the petitioner has questioned the partition, which occurred between the respondent and her family members and secondly that the filing of application is nothing but a delay tactics adopted. 11. This Court finds that the petitioner has filed reply in the suit for eviction on 11.5.2011 and the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has been filed on 23.10.2018 for amendment in the suit for eviction after a delay of more than seven years and no reason has been assigned in the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for such delay. Also the petitioner neither in the pleadings and nor in the submission has disclosed the date when the fact of vacant premises/shop came to his notice. If the application is allowed at this stage, then certainly it will lead to further delay in adjudication of the eviction suit pending before the learned Tribunal. 12. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the writ petition being bereft of merit is hereby is dismissed. 13. Stay application as well as all pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.