Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THE tenant has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 2nd December, 2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 32 of 2009 by which the application filed by the tenant for making amendments in the written statement has been rejected. It transpires from the record of the writ petition that an application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was filed by the landlord on 17th October, 2009 for release of the shop in question on the ground that he bona fide required it as he had retired from the Sugarcane Department on 30th September, 2008 and he wanted to do business as there was no pension facility in the department from where he retired. The tenant filed a written statement on 24th October, 2010 in which it was asserted that the landlord did not bona fide require the shop for doing business. The statement of the landlord regarding retirement from the Sugarcane Department as well as receiving pensionary benefits was denied for want of knowledge. Subsequently on 2nd December, 2011 an application was filed by the tenant for amendment of the written statement to the effect that it was not clear from the application filed by the landlord as to whether the landlord retired from Central Government Service or State Government Service because if he retired from the Sugarcane Department of the State Government, then the pension facility was available. This application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority holding that the pleadings between the parties had been exchanged and such amendment was not necessary for deciding the case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the landlord had set up the need to establish his business to maintain himself as there was no pension facility in the Sugarcane Department from where he retired, the amendment application should have been allowed as he should specifically state the facts.
(2.) THE application filed by the landlord before the Prescribed Authority is ripe for hearing. It will, therefore, not be appropriate for the Court to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. The tenant can raise all such pleas as are available to him during the course of arguments. Suffice it to also state that it will be open to the tenant to raise this plea in the Appeal which he may file in case the application is finally decided against the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid observations.;