- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 1-7-1999 passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of their written statement.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 alleging that the petitioners were tenant of the shop in question. He requires it bona fide for his personal need. The petitioners filed written statement. They admitted that they were tenants of the disputed premises. The petitioners filed an applica tion for amendment of the written state ment. In the written statement they stated that as the premises in question was let out after 15th July, 1972 in violation of the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the landlord respondent was not entitled to induct the petitioners as tenant. This ap plication has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority by the impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajesh Tandon, contended that the Prescribed Authority has expressed the view in relation to the merit of the case without permitting the amendment to be made. The ease has yet not been decided by the Prcseribed Authority. The plea taken by the amendment application can be taken into account by the Prescribed Authority. In Brij Nandan Sahai Hajela v. 11 Ird Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and others, 1996 (27) ALR 35 (Sum.) : 1996 (1) ARC 165, it has been held that even if no allotment order is passed the application under Section 21 (l) (a) is still maintainable. Secondly as to what is the effect of not being passed an allotment order can be also examined in any proceed ing which may take place under Section 12 read with Sect ion 16oftheacl.
(3.) IN view of the above the writ peti tion is allowed subject to the observation made above and the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 1-7-1999 is hereby quashed. The parties shall bear their own costs. .;