Rakesh Tiwari, J.;- Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that respondent-landlord filed an application in the Court below under Section 21(1)(a) & (b) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings ( Regulation Of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ) for eviction from Quarter no.122 Jain Nagar, Firozabad against the petitioner. It was registered as P.A. Case No. 85 of 1995, Sri Chhadami Lal Jain Trust versus Mahesh Chandra and others. 3. The petitioners-tenants contested the aforesaid application by filing written statement denying the averments made therein. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Firozabad vide its judgment and order dated 17.4.2009 allowed the release application of the respondent-landlord. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners-tenants filed P.A. Appeal No. 22 of 2009, Mahesh Chandra Jain and others versus Chhadami Lal Jain Trust. 5. During the pendency of appeal an amendment application was moved by the petitioners-tenants that they may be permitted to add in the written statement that the property in question is a trust property and as such the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. 6. The Appellate Court after considering the aforesaid amendment application and the objection thereto, filed by the landlord, vide its order dated 10.3.2011 rejected the said application holding that the same ground has already been taken by the petitioners-tenants in the written statement filed before the Prescribed Authority only with intention to delay the proceeding. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is well settled law that the amendment can be allowed at any stage of proceedings and the amendment sought is purely a legal issue and does not make any change in the nature of suit or proceedings nor it does prejudice the respondent-landlord in any manner; and that it is the provisions of law that Trust Property is exempted from the application of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hence the appellate Court ought to have allowed the amendment application so that a real question of law could be decided. 8. He also submits that the impugned order is illegal and erroneous on facts and in law, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court. 9. 8. He also submits that the impugned order is illegal and erroneous on facts and in law, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that the petitioners-tenants have taken this point in the written statement before the Prescribed Authority that the property in question is a trust property and as such the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable and the Prescribed Authority after going through the entire evidence and record has allowed the release application of the landlord. He further submits that the appellate Court has observed in the impugned order that the petitioners-tenant has again moved an amendment application ( paper no. 13-Ka) raising the same plea which he has already taken by him before the court below, hence he cannot move an application on the same grounds taking the same plea again in appeal and the aforesaid application has been moved to delay the proceedings as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the appellate Court. 10. From perusal of the impugned order of the appellate Court and the record of the writ petition it appears that the petitioners-tenants have moved an amendment application (paper no. 13-Ka) in the written statement that the property in question is a Trust Property, hence the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. An objection thereto was filed by the respondent-landlord contesting the averments made in the aforesaid amendment application. The appellate Court concluded that from perusal of P.A. Case No. 85 of 1995 filed by the landlord and objection thereto filed by the tenants before the Prescribed Authority it is apparent that the plea of non-application of the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was taken in the written statement before it and the Court below after having considered the entire evidence produced by the parties allowed the release application, hence, by means of amendment application the tenants can not raise this plea again in appeal and there is no need of moving separate amendment application. The petitioners have moved the said amendment application to linger on the matter and they can raise this legal point at the time of final arguments in appeal and accordingly rejected the application for amendment by the impugned order. 11. The petitioners have moved the said amendment application to linger on the matter and they can raise this legal point at the time of final arguments in appeal and accordingly rejected the application for amendment by the impugned order. 11. In my considered opinion, the appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, hence no interference is required by this Court. 12. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.