JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned orders dated 16.1.2010 and 1.4.2010, appended as Annexures-5 and 7 to the writ petition, passed by Respondent no. 3/Prescribed Authority. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Respondents no. 1 & 2/landlords filed P.A. Case No. 31 of 2003: Deepak Kumar Mehra and another Vs. Sri Bhuwanesh Chandra Agarwal before the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Cause Court, under Section 21 (1) (a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 for vacating the shop in dispute which was purchased by them through registered sale deed dated 16.11.2000. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed application No. 97A for amendment in the written statement. The application was objected to by the respondents-landlords on the ground that the new facts which are sought to be brought to the notice of the Prescribed Authority are vague. After hearing, the Prescribed Authority rejected the amendment application of the petitioner vide his order dated 16.1.2010. 5. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order dated 16.1.2010 on the ground; that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner came to know some new facts regarding other properties under the ownership of the landlords and some properties which were let out by the landlords to create new tenancy, as such, the Prescribed Authority has committed manifest error of law in not appreciating correct facts. He has further submitted that by the impugned order it has wrongly been held that the amendment application was filed with intention to linger on the case whereas the fact is that the petitioner by means of amendment application is trying to bring correct facts to the notice of the Prescribed Authority, as such, in the circumstances, interference is warranted by this Court to secure the ends of justice. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh, wherein it has been that "even belated application for amendment is not liable to be rejected merely on ground of delay if court finds that by allowing application real controversy between the parties may be resolved. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh, wherein it has been that "even belated application for amendment is not liable to be rejected merely on ground of delay if court finds that by allowing application real controversy between the parties may be resolved. It is further held that the Court can allow application where opposite party can be compensated by costs or otherwise and it has wide discretion to deal with the application in such manner and on such terms which appear it to be just and proper and with a view to do full and complete justice, provided nature of the suit is not changed by such amendment. 7. He has then relied upon paragraphs 6 to 8 of the judgment rendered in the case of Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar and another, wherein it has been observed that amendment sought to elaborate and clarify the earlier inadvertent confusion. In the above case, It is further observed that in original written statement appellant stated that he was tenant in respect of demised premises, and was occupying other areas of building concerned as well under different tenancies, seeking deletion of words "under different tenancies" by amendment to clarify that there were three different portions under one tenancy and not different portions under different tenancies. It was further held that what was sought to be removed was contradiction and confusion in written statement which was never intended to be an admission. 8. In the instant case, the matter was listed for final hearing and the petitioner wanted to introduce certain new facts which are mentioned in paragraphs 22A, 22B, 22C, 22D, 22E, 22F and 22G of the amendment application, which are thus: Pare 22 A: That without admitting anything and without prejudice to the answering opposite party's legal rights, it is stated here that the applicants have got no need what to say of bonafide need in respect of the property in question. It is important to state here that the applicants are living peacefully in very big spacious and palacial house consisting of three floors wherein they have go sufficient accommodation with them. It is important to state here that the applicants are living peacefully in very big spacious and palacial house consisting of three floors wherein they have go sufficient accommodation with them. It shall not be out of place to state here that the applicants on the ground floor have got at least two rooms and a Bathak, Kitchen, Latrine, Bathroom and sahan and a shop adjacent and towards the west of the property in question which is an independent residential set while on the first floor they have got four rooms, kitchen latrine and bath room which is also a separate residential set with lobby and at the second floor, the applicants have got two rooms and a very big open area which the applicants are peacefully enjoying and none of them have got any need in respect of the property in question. It is further stated here that the applicants have recently let out a shop at ground floor to person named Govind and if at all the applicants had any need then they would have utilized the said shop but the sole purpose of the applicants is to somehow eradicate the answering opposite party from the property in question. Para 22B: That besides the above palacial house, the applicants have also got another very big palacial house in Mohalla Beharipur Bazaria, Bareilly which consists of number of rooms and which is lying absolutely in vacant state. The said house is situated on the main road and the same is also readily available to the applicants. If at all they have got any need although neither any of the applicants nor any of their family members have got any need in respect of the property in question. Para 22 C: That the alleged need of the applicant as has been set forth in the present case is fanciful malafide and has been illegally designed ink order to evict the opposite party from the property in question. The opposite party is in possession over the property in question since long many years and has also developed a goodwill from the same property in question and in case the relief as has been wrongly claimed by the applicants is granted to them, definitely the opposite party shall be put to a great hardships and irreparable loss and the opposite party shall also suffer great financial loss. The property in question is only source of opposite party's livelihood and his family while on the contrary the applicants are financially very strong and are carrying on a number of businesses. The opposite party has got no alternative accommodation with him. Para 22D: That the allegations so concocted in the present case that the applicant no. 2 is a practising Advocate are absolutely wrong and have been wrongly alleged and the said theory has been fabricated for the purpose of getting the property in question from the opposite party. It is noteworthy that the applicant no. 2 along with his brother and father has been carrying on sarrafa business over the shop at Shivaji Marg, opposite Prakash Sweets, Bareilly under the name and style of Ms. Sri Brindavan Jewellers. The applicants are carrying the aforesaid business in the shop owned by them and adjacent to the applicant's said shop, there is another shop belonging to the applicants is lying in a vacant state under their lock and key. Besides the above business, the applicants have got another shop situated opposite to the aforesaid shop wherein similar saraffa business is being carried out under the name and style of Mehra Jewellers.The applicant no. 2 is not a practising Advocate as such he has got no requirement of Chamber. It is also stated here that merely because a person has been enrolled in State Bar Council or in District Bar Council will not give any permission about practising law. Only a person who is active in the profession requires a Chamber and not a person who is merely enrolled as an Advocate in the State Bar Council. Para 22-E: That the applicants have no need whatsoever in any manner in respect of the property in question, while on the other hand the property in question being the only source of livelihood is bonafidely required by the opposite party. Para 22-E: That the applicants have no need whatsoever in any manner in respect of the property in question, while on the other hand the property in question being the only source of livelihood is bonafidely required by the opposite party. Para 22 F: That without admitting anything and without prejudice to the opposite party's legal rights, it is stated here that ever since after the filing of the present case, the opposite party had made sincere efforts for the search of some other accommodation but all has gone in vain as there is no accommodation which is readily available to the locality, hence in the event the property in question is released, then the opposite party shall be put to enormous hardships and no hardship shall be caused to the applicants as they have got no need and they have also got sufficient accommodation available with them. It is further stated here that the present release application is also barred by the mandatory requirements of law contained under Section 21 of Act No. 13 of 1972 and the property in question cannot be released for the applicants alleged need. Para 22G: That the present release application is devoid of a sincere and bonafide need, hence the same is liable to be rejected. 9. In the objection, the landlord has challenged the maintainability of amendment application on the grounds; that the contents of the amendment application are absolutely wrong, misconceived and erroneous; that no cause has been shown in the impugned application as to why the proposed amendment was not called in the original pleadings; that the impugned application is also hit and barred by the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. added by virtue of Act No. 22 of 2002; that the application under objection has been moved in order to delay the proceedings of the case and also to fill up the lacuna. The trial court after hearing the parties, and considering the various decisions cited by the authorities, held as under: ^^voyksdu ls fofnr gS fd izLrqr okn esa i{kdkjksa dh lk{; nkf[ky gks pqdh Fkh mlds ckn i=koyh lu~ 2008 esa fu.kZ; gsrq lqjf{kr gq;h ijUrq i=koyh iqu% cgl gsrq fu;r gks x;hA blds i'pkr la'kks/ku izkFkZuk i= izfroknh dh rjQ ls tckonkrk esa la'kks/ku fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ewy fopkj.kh; iz'u ;g gS fd D;k ;kfpr la'kks/ku ekeys ds lE;d fuLrkj.k ds fy, vko';d gSA bl fcUnq ij foi{kh dh rjQ ls dFku fd;k x;k gS fd ;kfpr la'kks/ku ekeys ds lE;d fuLrkj.k ds fy, vko';d gS ftldk [k.Mu vkosnd dh rjQ ls fd;k x;kA bl fcUnq ij foi{kh dh rjQ ls ch-ds-,u-fiYybZ cuke ih- fiYybZ rFkk vU; 2000 ,l-,-vkj- ¼flfoy½ 128 nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us bl vk'k; dk er O;Dr fd;k gS fd tckonkrk esa la'kks/ku dh vuqefr okni= esa la'kks/ku dh rqyuk esa T;knk nh tkuh pkfg;sA nwljh fof/k O;oLFkk eSllZ vkse jkbl fey tliqj rFkk vU; cuke cukjl LVsV cSad fyfeVsM dk'khiqj rFkk vU; flfoy ,aM jsUV twMhf'k;y fjiksVZ 2000 ¼3½ ist 102 nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us bl vk'k; dk er O;Dr fd;k gS fd la'kks/ku izkFkZuki= fdlh Hkh Lrj ij izLrqr fd;k tk ldrk gS tc rd dh fu.kZ; u gks tk;A vxyh fof/k O;oLFkk lqjsUnz dqekj 'kekZ cuke ek[ku flag nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us bl vk'k; dk er O;Dr fd;k gS fd ;fn la'kks/ku ekeys ds fuLrkj.k ds fy, vko';d gS rks mls foyEc ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vxyh fof/k O;oLFkk lyhe cuke f}rh; vij ftyk tt] cyjkeiqj rFkk vU; nkf[ky fd;k gS ftlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us bl vk'k; dk er O;Dr fd;k gS fd =qfV ,oa mis{kk ds vk/kkj ij la'kks/ku izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg;s tc rd dh izkFkZuk i= esykQkbM voyksdu ls fofnr gS fd ;kfpr la'kks/ku esa vf/kdka'k rF; tckonkrk esa igys ls gh vafdr gSA dqN rF;ksa dks c<+k p<+kdj izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA lHkh rF; foi{kh dks igys ls gh Kkr FksA ekeys dks foyfEcr djus ds mn~ns'; ls fn;k tkuk izrhr gksrk gSa ;kfpr la'kks/ku ekeys ds lE;d fuLrkj.k ds fy, vko';d ugha gS vr% la'kks/ku izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gS [kfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA** 11. From the above order, it is apparent that all the new facts which the petitioner wanted to bring in the notice of the Prescribed Authority by way of amendment have already been mentioned in the objection. The petitioner was aware about all the facts before filing his written statement therefore the amendment application has rightly been rejected by the court below. Thus, the need of the landlord is to be seen in context of the shop for which release application was moved. It is also to be noted that evidence in this case has already been closed. 12. In the circumstances, the rulings cited by the petitioner in support of his case are not applicable as the amendment sought by the petitioner could not be of any help to resolve the real controversy involved in the suit regarding question of need of shop in dispute. 13. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition Dismissed.