R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 16.8.2000 passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the application of the petitioner to amend the written statement. It appears that respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, on the ground of bona fide need and comparatively more hardship. The petitioner on receipt of notice from the Court of respondent No. 1 filed his written statement denying the facts stated in the release application. During the pendency of the said application, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of written statement, which was objected to and opposed by respondent No. 2 the petitioner had already taken the defence contending that need of said respondent was not genuine, therefore, there was no justification for amending the written statement. The Prescribed Authority upheld the objection filed by respondent No. 2 and held that the petitioner could lead evidence on the points which were sought to be taken by means of the amendment application. It has also been held that the amendment application was not a bona fide application but was filed with a view to delay and linger on the proceedings.
(2.) I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned in this petition. It is, however, observed that it will be open to the petitioner to file affidavit before the Prescribed Authority taking all the points which were sought to be taken by means of the amendment as it has already been held/observed by the Prescribed Authority itself. Subject to what has been stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.;