JUDGMENT S.U. KHAN, J.-This is tenant's writ petition, arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by the landlord -respondent No.3 under section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against tenant-petitioner seeking his eviction from the tenanted accommodation on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. Tenanted accommodation is a shop. Tenant filed written statement questioning the alleged partition between landlord-applicant and his brothers. Release application was registered as Case No. 11 of 1991 on the file of Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Lalitpur, Khoob Chand v. Ram Narain Sharma. Tenant-petitioner filed an application seeking amendment in his written statement. It was stated in the amendment application that another house which was in possession of another tenant had been vacated and other family members of the landlord had started some business from the said house. It was alleged that landlord had let out the said house to his relative i.e., nephew, son of Khoob Chand. 2. Landlord filed his reply and stated that amendment sought was frivolous and earlier also four amendment applications had been given. Prescribed authority rejected the amendment application through order dated 20.3.1997 holding that the facts soughts be added were already there in para 31 of the written statement and the main purpose of the tenant was to delay the proceedings. Against the said order, Revision No. 90 of 1997 was filed which was dismissed by District Judge, Lalitpur on 13.11.1997, hence this writ petition. 3. Revisional Court held that firstly. revision was not maintainable and secondly, order passed by prescribed authority was perfectly correct. 4. I do not find least error in the impugned orders, repeated amendment applications filed by the tenant dearly proved that he was interested only in delaying the matter. Prescribed authority rightly held that the pleas sought to be added through amendment had already been taken in the written statement. 5. On the one hand tenant is not permitting the release proceedings to be finalized and on the other he is constantly filing amendment applications to bring on record changed circumstances. If release application is permitted to be decided quickly there will not be many changed circumstances. 6. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Prescribed authority is directed to decide the release application expeditiously. Both the parties are directed to appear before the prescribed authority on 1.9.2008. If release application is permitted to be decided quickly there will not be many changed circumstances. 6. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Prescribed authority is directed to decide the release application expeditiously. Both the parties are directed to appear before the prescribed authority on 1.9.2008. Absolutely, no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties. If Court below is inclined to grant any adjournment on any ground to any of the parties, then it shall be on very heavy cost, which shall not be less than Rs. 500/- per adjournment. Petition Dismissed.