B.S.Verma, J.;- (Stay Application No. 1532 of 2011) Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate, files his power on behalf of the petitioner. The same is taken on record. Learned counsel for both the parties are ready to argue the appeal finally at the admission stage today without counter version since the argument is legal in nature. Heard. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ for setting aside the impugned order dated 1-2-2011 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 33 of 2010, whereby the applications for amendment moved by the petitioner-appellant (tenant) (paper nos. 34-A and 36-A) have been rejected by the appellate court. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner-defendant prayed for seeking interrogatories before the appellate court. The application for interrogatories was allowed and in reply thereto, the respondent no.1-landlord filed an affidavit and explained all the properties for which the interrogatories were sought. 2 The amendment application (copy Annexure 7 to the petition) has been moved by the petitioner-appellant on the ground that since the facts, which were disclosed by the landlord in the interrogatories were not in the notice of the petitioner at the time of the trial of the case, therefore, it is necessary to amend the written statement. So far as the question no. 1 is concerned, the shop measuring 12 ft x 20 ft is admitted to the respondent no.1-landlord in replication in reply when the plea was raised in the written statement by the tenant-petitioner. So far as other properties are concerned, according to the landlord, there is a residential house measuring 800 sq.ft. covered with two rooms of about 12 ft. x 12 ft, one kitchen, one bathroom and verandah. As regards the property bearing Municipal No. 37, Sudama Marg, Rishikesh, Dehradun, according to the landlord it is shop measuring 30 ft x 30 ft., which is in possession of his wife Smt. Kiran Suneja. She is running business of automobile repairing shop and one property bearing municipal no. 187/92, Haridwar Road, Rishikesh, mentioned in reply of the interrogatories, is in possession of the landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that if the amendment is not allowed beyond the pleadings, the Court cannot consider the evidence. Since the respondent no. 1-landlord has himself admitted the property. 187/92, Haridwar Road, Rishikesh, mentioned in reply of the interrogatories, is in possession of the landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that if the amendment is not allowed beyond the pleadings, the Court cannot consider the evidence. Since the respondent no. 1-landlord has himself admitted the property. It is well settled that the admitted facts need not be proved. If the petitioner thinks that the details of property, as have been given by the landlord are wrong, these facts can be rebutted by filing affidavit before the appellate court. If such affidavit is filed, the appellate court shall consider the affidavit as additional evidence and shall decide the appeal on merits. In the above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, whereby the amendment application of the petitioner-appellant was rejected. The writ 3 petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. However, if the petitioner thinks that the details of property, as have been given by the landlord in the replica are wrong, these facts can be rebutted by filing affidavit before the appellate court. If such affidavit is filed, the appellate court shall consider the affidavit as additional evidence and shall decide the appeal on merits. All pending applications stand disposed of. A certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties by tomorrow (10-3-2011) on payment of usual charges.