S.K. Dhaon, J. - (1.) This petition, at the instance of the tenants, is directed against an order dated 2nd April, 1987, passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, acting as appellate authority of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) The landlords application under Section 21 of the Act had been rejected by the Prescribed Authority. They preferred an appeal. In that a appeal they prayed for permission to amend, their application under Section 21. Some amendments have been allowed. The grievance of the petitioner, however, is with respect to an amendment allowed in paragraph 23-H of the petitioner under Section 21. A new clause, namely, Clause-J has been permitted to be added. By the amendment in this particular clause-J the landlords have come out with a case that Sri Gyan Prakash Srivastava, their son completed his M. Sc. in 1982. He has been without any job since the and now he has decided to set up a medical store and a chemist shop.
(3.) The 1st Additional District Judge, has opined that this is a subsequent event and, therefore, it was in the fitness of things that the amendment which will not change the nature of the case should be allowed. Learned counsel has very fairly conceded that the 1st Additional District Judge had the jurisdiction to permit the amendment of the application under Section 21. He, however, urges that it was grossly improper on the part of the Judge to have accepted the amendment application at a belated stage when arguments in the case had been concluded and the orders had been reserved by the Judge himself. At this stage, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the appellate court. However, I reserve the right of the petitioners to challenge the propriety and legality of the impugned order, if and when it becomes necessary for them to challenged the legality of the final order passed by the appellate authority in the appeal.;