DILIP GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition filed by the tenant seeks the quashing of the order dated 12th March, 2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority whereby the amendment application filed by the tenant for incorporating certain amendments in the reply filed to the application filed by the landlord under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the shop in dispute, was dismissed. ( 2 ) THE records of the writ petition indicate that the landlord had filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the shop on the ground floor, asserting that it was required for establishing his son in business of General Merchant. The tenant had filed a reply to the said application. Subsequently, the amendment application was moved for amending the written statement to bring on record the fact that subsequently the landlord had let out the building on the first floor to a coaching center. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below committed an illegality in rejecting the amendment application and in support of the contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Usha Balashaheb swami and others v. Khan Appaso Swami and others, 2007 68 ALR (SC) 166. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents, however, placed reliance upon paragraph 7 of the reply filed by the landlord to the amendment application and submitted that the averments made in the amendment application were without merits. ( 5 ) IT is, therefore, clear that the sole contention advanced by the learned counsel for the landlord for rejecting the amendment application is that even on merits no benefit would accrue to the tenant after incorporation of the amended paragraphs in the written statement. This cannot be made a ground to reject the application as has been held by the Supreme Court in Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro Bank N. V. and others, 2007 0 AIR (SCW) 4466, wherein it was observed: "so far as the second ground is concerned, we are also of the view that while allowing an application for amendment of the pleadings, the Court cannot go into the question of merit of such amendment. The only question at the time of considering the amendment of the pleadings would be whether such amendment would be necessary for decision of the real controversy between the parties in the suit. From a perusal of the amendment application we find that the appellant in their prayer for amendment has only taken an additional defence that in view of section 230 of the Indian Contract act, the suit itself is not maintainable. It is well settled, as noted herein earlier, that at the time of considering the prayer for amendment of the written statement it would not be open to the Court to go into the fact whether in fact the suit in view of section 230 of the Indian Contract Act was or is not maintainable. That apart it is permissible in law to amend a written statement of the defendant by which only an additional ground of defence has been taken. " ( 6 ) THE Supreme Court in Usha Balashaheb Swami and others (supra) also observed that the Courts should be more liberal in allowing the amendments in the written statement as compared to the plaint and the relevant observations are as follows : "it is equally well settled principle that a prayer for amendment of the plaint and a prayer for amendment of the written statement stand on different footings. The general principal that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counter part in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. Therefore, addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defender or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would not be objectionable while adding, altering or substitution a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable. Such being the settled law, we must hold that in the case of amendment of a written statement, the Courts are more liberal in allowing an amendment than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter (see B. K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran piliai, 2000 38 ALR 338, and Baldev Singh and others v. Manohar Singh, 2006 64 ALR (SC) 895. . . . . . . . . . . " ( 7 ) IN the amendment application, it has been stated that in January 2008, the landlord had let out certain portion on the first floor of the same building to a coaching center. In reply to the said amendment application, the landlord asserted in paragraph 7 that the requirement of a shop for the business of general merchant is different from that of a coaching center and, therefore, if the portion of the first floor of the building had been let out to the coaching center it will not affect the bona fide need of the landlord for establishing the son in business of General Merchant on the ground floor. It is, thus, apparent that only an additional ground was taken for rejecting the release application of the landlord. The amendment application was, therefore, liable to be allowed. ( 8 ) IN this view of the matter, the order dated 12th March, 2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Moradabad, rejecting the application filed by the tenant cannot be sustained and is accordingly, set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the amendment application is allowed on payment of Rs. 500/ -. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that since the application filed under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act is pending from the year 2005, a direction may be issued to the Prescribed Authority to decide it expeditiously. Let the Prescribed Authority decide the application expedrtiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of the order is filed by either of the parties before it. Petition Allowed. .