K.C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by M/s. Khanna Brothers against the order of the learned Addl. District Judge, dated 6 -4 -1987 allowing the amendment in the application filed by the landlady respondent under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The appeal has been gone back in pursuance of the order of this Court in Writ No. 2299 of 1983, decided on 30th October,, 1985 (See 1986 (1) ARC 124). The Appellate Court had directed to decide the application afresh. The amendment application was filed in this appeal. To these amendments objections were preferred by tenant -petitioner. The Court allowed the same and permitted the petitioner to file Additional written statement. As against that order the present writ petition had been filed. Allowing of an amendment or rejecting is of an interlocutory nature and that being so, the writ petition is not entertainable on that ground. On merits also I find no basis to interfere. The petitioner's Counsel urged that new grounds for release could not be taken by means of an amendment in the appeal as that would amount permitting the opposite party landlady, to deprive the applicant of the right which had accrued to it. This argument is not acceptable to me. An amendment in the appeal under Section 22 does not attract all those principles which are otherwise applicable to the general rights in the suits in the Civil Courts.
(2.) THE amendments may require evidence. The Appellate Authority may take the evidence itself or may call upon the Prescribed Authority to take the evidence and remit the same to it. The application under Section 21 was since filed long time back, it would be in the interest of justice that the Appellate Court decides the case expeditiously within three months. Subject to the above, the writ petition is rejected.;