Devendra Kumar Arora, J.;- Heard Ms. Pratima Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 16.01.2002 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow, by which the petitioner's application for amendment in the written statement has been dismissed and also against the impugned order dated 04.02.2002 passed by the In-charge District Judge, Lucknow, by which the petitioner's SCC Revision No. 09 of 2002 filed against the order dated 16.01.2002 has been dismissed. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a tenant of a shop in the Gurudwara Building owned by Sri Guru Singh Sabha, Gurudwara, Naka Hindola, Lucknow (opposite party no. 1) on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. The opposite party no. 1 filed SCC Suit No. 23 of 2001 against the petitioner in the Court of opposite party no. 2 for recovery of arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation and ejectment. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 1831/- as arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation and other charges along with 9% interest thereon under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the Court of opposite party no. 2 and also advanced rent upto June, 2002. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite party no. 1/owner is only a registered body registered under "The Societies Registration Act, 1860" and is not a "Public Religious Institution", hence is not entitled to be exempted from the purview of the "The Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) and the question of its being a Religious Institution can be decided only by the District Judge. 4. The petitioner preferred an application for amendment of the written statement filed in the suit before opposite party no. 2 on 14.08.2001. The opposite party no. 1 filed his objection to the said amendment application stating therein that the said application was filed with intent to cause delay in deciding the suit. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 90 of C.P.C. for obtaining the opinion of the District Judge regarding the charitable nature of the opposite party no. The opposite party no. 1 filed his objection to the said amendment application stating therein that the said application was filed with intent to cause delay in deciding the suit. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 90 of C.P.C. for obtaining the opinion of the District Judge regarding the charitable nature of the opposite party no. 1 before the opposite party no. 2 on 05.09.2001, but the same is still pending. The allegation of learned counsel for the petitioner is that opposite party no. 2 without thorough hearing of the petitioner's application for amendment of the written statement dismissed it in quite arbitrary manner vide his order dated 16.01.2002 on the ground that the proposed amendments are unnecessary and are covered by the statements made in paragraphs no. 19 and 24 of the written statement and the amendment application has been moved to delay the proceedings. 5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the order dated 16.01.2002 filed a Civil Revision under Section 25 of 'The Provincial Small Causes Courts Act' in the court of District Judge, Lucknow on 28.01.2002 stating therein that the impugned order has been passed by opposite party no. 2 without application of proper judicial mind and in quite arbitrary manner and the petitioner's written statement was misread and misinterpreted. It is submitted that the Incharge District Judge, Lucknow also without thorough hearing of the petitioner's revision application, dismissed the same vide his order dated 04.02.2002 in quite arbitrary manner and also without application of proper judicial mind by holding that the proposed amendments sought for in the written statement are covered by statements made in Paras 1, 8 and 19 of the written statement and so they are not necessary to be added again by amendment. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amendments sought in the written statement were for the purpose of stating the facts and position to show that the plaintiff-Sri Guru Singh Sabha, Gurudwara, Naka Hindola, Lucknow is not entitled to the exemption of 'U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972' under Sub-Section 1 (bb) of Section-2 of the Act, 1972 and these facts were not mentioned in the written statement. 6. 6. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Order-6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. provides that "The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just" and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The proposed amendments in the written statement will ultimately lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff of the Suit "Sri Guru Singh Sabha, Gurudwara, Naka Hindola, Lucknow" is not a "Public Religious Institution" and further the defendant has the old tenancy since the year 1950, during the life time of his father and as such the Landlord is not exempted from the provisions of "The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 under Sub-section 1 (bb) of Section 2 and it is in the interest of justice to direct the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 to allow the proposed amendment in the written statement. 7. Shri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties while opposing the writ petition submitted that the petitioner was a tenant of a shop in the Gurudwara Building known as Sri Guru Singh Sabha, Gurudwara, Naka Hindola, Lucknow (opposite party no. 1) which is a Sikh religious Gurudwara. The opposite party no. 1 filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent damages for use and occupation and ejectment, which was registered as SCC Suit No. 23 of 2000. It is submitted that since the building in question is owned by Sikh Gurudwara, which is a public religious institutions, hence the said building is exempted from the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 and there is no occasion for the petitioner to have deposited the sum of Rs. 1831/- in compliance of Section 20 sub clause 4 of the U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972. 8. It is further submitted that the plaintiff at the time of institution of this suit in para 1 of the plaint itself categorically stated that the plaintiff is the owner/landlord of the building and since the said building belongs to the plaintiff, which is a public religious institution being a Sikh Gurudwara, hence the said building is exempted from the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It is also submitted by Shri Jaspreet Singh that it is wrongly stated that the question whether the building in question is entitled for the exemption from the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 or not can only be decided by the District Judge. The answering opposite party No. 1, who is plaintiff before the court below has specifically pleaded exemption of the building from the provisions of the Act, hence primarily it is the opposite party who is required to satisfy the court below with cogent evidence as to the fact whether the said building in question is exempted or not. It is also submitted that the grounds raised in para-7 of the writ petition are misconceived and have no application at all as the notice was given to the petitioner by the answering opposite party no. 1 for termination of tenancy on 15.01.2001, which was served on the petitioner on 17.01.2001 and the Suit was instituted on 24.02.2001. The U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was amended by the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995 w.e.f. 26.09.1994 and as such clauses (bb) and (bbb) were inserted and on the date of institution of the suit, the relevant amendment Act was applicable and as such the building in question was duly exempted from the provisions of the Act. 9. Shri Singh further submitted that it is settled law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court that the rights of the parties are to be adjudicated on the basis of the relevant law prevalent at the time of institutions of this suit and since on the date of institution of the suit, the building was exempted from the provisions of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972, hence the first ground raised by the petitioner has no merits. So far as the question as to whether Sri Guru Singh Sabha Gurdwara,Naka Hindola, Lucknow is a public religious institution or not, is to be established by the plaintiff before the court below. The application for amendment was only moved with oblique motive to delay the proceedings. It is further submitted that the plea sought to be incorporated by the amendment was already contained in the written statement of the petitioner and as such an amendment only for the purposes of repetition cannot be allowed. The application for amendment was only moved with oblique motive to delay the proceedings. It is further submitted that the plea sought to be incorporated by the amendment was already contained in the written statement of the petitioner and as such an amendment only for the purposes of repetition cannot be allowed. The petitioner has become successful in delaying the proceedings as proceedings were stayed by this Court vide order dated 03.04.2002 and approximately 9 years have passed. In view of above, orders of both the courts below are perfectly legal. The matter is still pending before the trial court where parties are required to lead evidence in support of their case. It is submitted that amendment cannot be sought as a matter of fact. It is incumbent upon the party seeking amendment to establish why the said amendment is necessary and why it was not incorporated earlier. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the submissions of learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1, in sum and substance reiterated her submission made earlier. 11. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 12. The perusal of the plaint reveals that plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 in para-1 itself stated that the plaintiff is the owner-landlord of the building known as Sri Guru Singh Sabha Gurdwara, Naka Hindola, Lucknow, which is registered under the Act 21 of 1860 of the Societies Registration Act, which is a religious Gurudwara and the same is exempted from the operation of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972. The petitioner in his written statement in para-1 denied the exemption from the provisions of U.P. Act N0. 13 of 1972 and similar pleadings have been made in paragraphs 19 and 24. On perusal of amendment application, it is evident that the petitioner wanted to reiterate his submissions made in the written statement. The plaintiff himself in para-1 of the plaint submitted about his status and the question is to be determined by the trial court by adducing evidences by the respective parties. The Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow rightly observed in his order dated 16.01.2002 that the facts are already in paragraphs 19 and 24 of the written statement and by means of proposed amendment effort is being made to delay the proceedings. 13. The Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow rightly observed in his order dated 16.01.2002 that the facts are already in paragraphs 19 and 24 of the written statement and by means of proposed amendment effort is being made to delay the proceedings. 13. On examination, I do not find any illegality in the order of Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow and the revisional order dated 04.02.2002. The present writ petition was filed in the year 2002 and proceedings of SCC Suit No. 23/01 pending before the Judge, Small Causes, Lucknow were stayed by this Court by means of order dated 03.04.2002. Now more than 9 years have passed and petitioner apparently succeeded in his attempt to delay the proceedings. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and sons and others, (2009) 10 SCC 84 , while dealing with the application for amendment held as under:- "63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment. (1). Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or malafide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. There are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive." 15. On examination of facts and circumstances of the case as well as principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 16.01.2002 of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow and order dated 04.02.2002 of the Incharge District Judge, Lucknow (Annexures No. 1 and 2 to the writ petition) and as such the the writ petition does not warrant any interference. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.