Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.10.1998 passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the application for amendment of the written-statement and application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to make inspection of the building.
(2.) Respondent No. 2 filed an application for release of the disputed accommodation under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 3.2.1995. The petitioners filed an appeal before the learned District Judge. During the pendency of the appeal, they filed an application for amendment of the written-statement alleging that during the pendency of the appeal, certain events had taken place which shows that the need of the landlord was not bona fide. It was alleged that the mother of the landlord has partitioned the building which she divided in three portions amongst her sons and the landlord-respondent got exclusive possession of a portion consisting of five rooms. This application was opposed by the landlord-respondent. The petitioners had already taken the stand that the landlord is residing in the house, which according to them, was an ancestral property. The only amendments they wanted to take is the plea that by the subsequent event the landlord has got a portion exclusively for himself. They did not require any amendment. The petitioners could have filed affidavits bringing this fact to the notice of the Court on facts and such documents which they intended to rely upon. The case of the landlord is that the house belongs to the mother and the petitioners have no right to occupy any portion of it. As stated above, if the petitioners want to bring any fact, which according to them, has come into existence after filing appeal, they can file affidavits. The building, according to the landlord, belongs to the mother.
(3.) In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above.;