JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No.1 has filed a Suit [Regular Suit No. 167 of 1999] for injunction against the opposite party No.2 and in the aforesaid Suit, the petitioner had claimed herself to be the owner and had specifically stated that the opposite party No.2 has no concern with the premises being House No. 202/32 River Bank Colony and had also mentioned the boundaries of the house in dispute. The said Suit was partially decreed vide judgment and order dated 13.5.2002. Subsequently, in the year 2008, the opposite party No.2 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act 13 of 1972 on the allegation that the petitioners are tenants and the opposite party No.2 is the landlord of house No. 202/29 Stand Road, Changa Ka Purwa, River Bank Colony. A perusal of the application will indicate that the opposite party No.2 has no where disclosed that as to how he claims the owner of the premises in occupation of the petitioner i.e. 202/32. Petitioners filed written statement/objections against the application and specifically denied the title of opposite party No.2 as well as the relationship of landlord and tenant. Opposite party No.2 has not filed any document to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant either in earlier Suit [Regular Suit No.167 of 1999] or in the proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act 13 of 1972.? 3. Under these circumstances, the petitioners moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for return of the application or dismissal of the same on 17.3.2009, to which objections wer filed on 1.4.2009. In most arbitrary and illegal manner, the said application was rejected by the order dated 22.4.2009. In order to resolve the controversy, an application has been moved for issuance of Commission on 18.5.2009 duly supported by an affidavit. On 3.8.2009, the opposite party No.2 filed his objections. The said application was rejected by the order dated 18.5.2009. 4. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application for amendment of written statement on 18.2.2010 as the petitioners could not mention the boundaries which were necessary for adjudication of the case. The said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 23.2.2010. 5. Perused the record including the impugned order. The said application was rejected by the order dated 18.5.2009. 4. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application for amendment of written statement on 18.2.2010 as the petitioners could not mention the boundaries which were necessary for adjudication of the case. The said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 23.2.2010. 5. Perused the record including the impugned order. In the amendment application, it has been mentioned that in spite of the fact that the decree in respect of the house has been passed by the trial Court, the opposite parties in the instant writ petition have declared the boundaries of the portion of house No.202/32, which have been demarcated in favour of petitioner. On coming to know the aforesaid fact, the petitioners moved an application for correcting the demarcation of boundaries of the house in question. The said application has wrongly been rejected by the trial Court. I find force in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 22.4.2009, 18.5.2009 and 23.2.2010 are set aside.