JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.N. Tilhari, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The factual matrix to the present case, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the controversy in the present case relates to house situate at mohalla Railwayganj Hardoi Pargana Gopamau Tehsil and District Hardoi. The said house owned by one Sri Triyogi Narain Gupta .He moved an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act ( Act No. 13 of 1972) on 9.9.2002 and the same was registered as P.A. Case No. 9 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Hardoi . In the said case, the present petitioner, who was respondent had filed a written statement on 18.11.2003. 3. Thereafter, due to certain development which had taken place an amendment application was moved on behalf of the present petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. On 14.5.2008 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition ) and the same was allowed and accordingly an amendment was made in the written statement . 4. On 26.9.2008 landlord had filed replication as a result of which an application for permission to file additional written statement alongwith the same was filed by the petitioner on 24.10.2008. 5. On 10.12.2008, to the said application, the respondent- landlord filed an objection. 6. By means of order dated 23.4.2009, the respondent No. 1 had rejected the application filed by the petitioner for taking the additional written statement on record hence the present writ petition . 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order dated 23.4.2009 passed by opposite party No. 1 has submitted that as certain new facts has been stated on behalf of the respondent/landlord in the replication as such in view of the said subsequent developments it is necessary in the interest of justice that additional written statement should be taken on record so the order passed by the respondent No. 1 is illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. 8. Sri R.N. Tilhari, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that no additional facts whatsoever had been taken in the replication filed by the petitioner and only the facts which had already taken in the release application earlier by the landlord are elaborated in the replication as such there is no need to file additional written statement by the tenant . In view of the said fact the order dated 23.4.2009 passed by opposite party No. 1 is perfectly valid. He further submits that the petitioner has already moved an application supported by an affidavit for recalling the order dated 23.4.2009,which is challenged in the present writ petition, before opposite party No. 1 and the same is still pending for adjudication so the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Admittedly, in the present case , the application for release of the premises in question has been moved by the landlord on 9.9.2002 and on 14.5.2008 an amendment application was moved and was allowed by the Court . Thereafter replication was filed on behalf of the landlord-respondent inter alia stating certain facts to which the petitioner-tenant wants to file additional written statement . Accordingly, he moved an application for filing of the same which was rejected by opposite party No. 1 by order dated 23.4.2009. 11. Apparently, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The release application was moved in the year 2002 and thereafter on one or other pretext the matter is lingering on account of the delay and dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioner. However, of the such conduct of a party howsoever unconscionable rather unpardonable may be prompt indulgence being shown as a special case to avoid any miscarriage of justice being done though I am in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord that the petitioner is guilty of dilatory tactics and does not deserve protection under the law. So, without laying down any law on the point and with a view to secure justice in the case, Keeping in view the fact that while passing the order dated 23.4.2009 which is under challenge in the present writ petition, respondent No. 1 given a finding to the effect that the plea which was taken by the landlord-respondent in his replication is artificial or new , the same may be decided on merit at the time of disposal of the case and if it is found that said plea are new one , an opportunity will be given to the petitioner-tenant to file additional evidence so keeping in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that an opportunity be given to the petitioner to file additional written statement and the landlord-respondent can certainly be compensated with cost. The view which is taken by me is also supported from the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Ashok Chemicals v. Amar Chand Jain and others, 1987(2) Allahabad Rent Cases 308. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 23.4.2009 passed by opposite party No. 1 is set aside with the direction that the Additional Written Statement as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition be taken on record with cost of Rs. 5000/- which is payable by the petitioner to the landlord-respondent within a period of two weeks from today and the matter i.e. P.A. Case No. 9 of 2002 shall be decided by opposite party No. 1 within a period of five months from today positively in accordance with law. ————