- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this peti tion filed under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 31-7-2000 whereby the application for amendment of the pleading was dismissed by the trial Court
(2.) IT appears that the contesting Respondents No. 3 and 4 filed an applica tion under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent an Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, for released of the building in question and for their personal use and occupation. The application was objected to and opposed by the petitioner pleading that the need of the said respondents was neither genuine nor bonafide. IT was also stated that in case the application is rejected, the said respon dents shall not suffer any hardship. On the other hand, the petitioner shall suffer greater hardship in the event the applica tion is allowed. The parties is support of their cases produced evidence, oral and documentary. The Prescribed Authority after going through the material on record allowed the application by judgment and order dated -16-10-1990. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, an application for amendment of the writ ten statement was filed. The said applica tion was objected to and opposed by the contesting respondents. The Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the amendment sought to be made in the writ ten statement was not necessary for decid ing the controversy involved in the case inasmuch as the relevant facts regarding the plea which was sought to be taken by means of the amendment, were already stated in the written statement. He, there fore, came to the conclusion that the amendment in the written statement was not necessary. Having recorded the said finding, the amendment application was dismissed by judgment and order dated 31-7-2000. Hence, the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that by means of the amendment the petitioner wanted to bring on record the subsequent events regarding the number of members of the family, which was necessary for the just and correct dis posal of the appeal, therefore, the Appellate Authority has erred in law in dismissing the application for amendment.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Appellate Authority has recorded clear and categorical finding that the amendment which was sought to be made in the written statement was not necessary to resolve the controversy in volved in the case inasmuch as the relevant facts were already stated in the written statement. I do not find any illegally or infirmity in the impugned order. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.;