JUDGMENT M. P. Singh, J. 1. The petitioners are tenants of residential accommodation situated in Vrindaban which is known as 'Anand Bhavan' Ath Khambha, Vrindaban, District Mathura. 2. The landlords filed an application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Prescribed Authority, Mathura, for release of the accommodation on the ground that Smt. Kamlawati, respondent No. 4, mother of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, was an old lady. She was of religious bent of mind and wanted to shift from Amritsar to Vrindaban to pass her last days of life there. The petitioners contested the said application on the ground that Smt. Kamlawati was staying with her sons at Amritsar who are cloth merchants and doing their business there and she has no intention to come to Mathura. It is only a device to get the accommodation released. The Prescribed Authority by an order dated 29-3-1984 rejected the application of the landlords by holding that the need of respondent No. 4 was neither genuine nor bonafide. Against this order of the Prescribed Authority dated 29-3-1984 the landlords filed an appeal before the District Judge, Mathura. During pendency of the appeal an application for amendment of the application under section 21 of the Act was filed on the ground that on account of terrorists activities in Punjab they want to shift to Mathura and permanently reside in the house in dispute. The petitioners filed an objection to the said application for amendment. After hearing counsel for the parties the District Judge allowed the amendment application by an order dated 3-2-1987 subject to payment of Rs. 100/- as costs which was accepted by the petitioner's counsel appearing in the court below. After the amendment was allowed the respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit in support of his evidence whose copy has been filed as Annexure V to the counter affidavit. 3. During the course of hearing before me a copy of the order sheet dated 18-8-1987 was produced by the counsel for the respondent which was not disputed by the counsel for the petitioners as it was a matter of record The said order sheet dated 18-8-1987 is being reproduced below :- 18-8-1987 Case called out. Counsels for the parties are present. Counsels for the parties are present. 51-C-Application by respondents for filing their affidavits alleging that after the amendment was made by the appellants in his application under section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, he was given opportunity to file counter affidavits but he filed writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court which was admitted and therefore the respondent was under the impression that these affidavits could be filed subsequently. The application is opposed. The record shows that after the arguments 5-8-87 had been fixed for judgment. Since my predecessor had handed over the charge, a date for further arguments was fixed. I do not think there was any occasion for the respondents to be under the impression that the affidavits could be filed even after the judgment was delivered. However in the interest of justice I grant the application upon payment of Rs. 40/- as costs. Rejoinder affidavit or affidavits to be filed within 7 days. Arguments in appeal on 28-8-1987. It is the oldest such appeal on file. Counsel of the parties must come prepared for arguments." 4. A perusal of the order sheet indicates that after the amendment was allowed the parties were given full opportunity to lead evidence and an opportunity was given for hearing. Aggrieved against the said order allowing the amendment of the application under section 21 of the Act, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and submitted (i) the amendment sought could not have been allowed as it changed nature of the case and (ii) the subsequent events could not have been taken into consideration. This argument is mis-conceived. On this question the law is clear that in such cases the court can take into consideration the subsequent events which came into existence after filing of the application under section 21 of the Act. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the court below has no jurisdiction to allow the amendment application as it changed nature of the case. In my opinion this argument is mis-conceived. Nature of the case remains the same Only ground has been added. The additional ground sought to be added was that on account of terrorists activities the landlords wanted to shift from Amritsar to Vrindaban. This in no way changes the nature of the case. 5. In my opinion this argument is mis-conceived. Nature of the case remains the same Only ground has been added. The additional ground sought to be added was that on account of terrorists activities the landlords wanted to shift from Amritsar to Vrindaban. This in no way changes the nature of the case. 5. The various decisions of the Supreme Court and of our High Court are of constant views that the courts should be liberal in allowing the amendment so that real justice may be done between the parties. In the case of Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, AIR 1981 SC 1711 , in similar circumstances the Supreme Court allowed the amendment. In that case the suit was filed for eviction of tenants from entire building comprised of two premises on ground of personal need for business purposes. In the Second Appeal preferred the tenants sought amendment that the landlord obtained a decree for eviction from larger premises and the premises was sufficient to meet landlord's need and that the landlord acquired possession of larger premises which was sufficient for his purposes. The court after considering the said point allowed the amendment. 6. In Haridas Aildas Thadani v. Godrej Rustom Kermani, 1982 AWC 201, the Supreme Court has held that :- ".........Test for allowing the amendment is to find out whether the proposed amendment works any serious injustice to the other side. It is well settled that the court should be extremely liberal in granting prayer of amendment of pleading unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side." In the instant case, in my opinion, in case the amendment is refused, grave injustice would be caused to the landlords-respondents. They should get full opportunity of presenting their case on the grounds available to them. 7. In the case of Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera, 1984 AWC 128, the Supreme Court held that amendment for adding facts already on record does not change the cause of action and as such the amendment be allowed even after the statutory period of limitation. 8. In another decision reported in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267 , the Supreme Court held that :- "The application could not have been refused on technical grounds. 8. In another decision reported in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267 , the Supreme Court held that :- "The application could not have been refused on technical grounds. The power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations. Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice...... The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide, or that be his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however, late the proposed amendment the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side." This judgment was followed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. District Judge, 1982 UP RCC 537. The same view has been taken in another case by the Allahabad High Court in Hamidan v. Addl. District Judge, 1983 UP RCC 347. 9. After giving my careful consideration to the matter I am of the opinion that the proposed amendment neither changes the nature of the case nor it can be said to be malafide nor cause any prejudice to the tenants-petitioners. The petitioners' counsel had accepted Rs. 100/- as costs and also filed an additional written statement and had been given full opportunity to contest the amended application. The proposed amendment has rightly been allowed by the respondent No. 1. 10. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.