JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and orders dated 17.8.2010, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandauli in Original Suit No. 01 of 2008: Shri Prakash v. Krishna Kumar Singh and judgment dated 11.1.2011 passed by District Judge, Chandauli in Civil Revision No. 32 of 2010: Krishna Kumar Singh v. Shri Prakash Jaiswal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is tenant of a shop situated in house No. 80 M (New No. 152) Mainatali, Galla Mandi, Mugal Sarai, Pargana-Mawai, Tehsil & District-Chandauli, since 1981. The shop in dispute was taken on rent of Rs. 200/- per month till 1990, from 1990 to 2006 it was taken on rent of Rs. 300/- per month and from January 2007 it’s rent was Rs. 400/- per month by mutual consent of the landlord-respondent. 4. According to the case set up by the petitioner, the respondent No. 2-landlord has refused to accept rent of Rs. 400/- since it was increased i.e. January 2007 and he filed Suit No. 01 of 2008 on the basis of default in payment of rent by the petitioner. The suit has been contested by the tenant by filing written statement. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for amendment 39 Ka and the same was rejected by the trial Court. By the amendment, the petitioner sought relief to incorporate question of bona fide need in the proceedings in Suit No. 1 of 2008 which was filed under Section 20 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by the trial Court on 17.8.2010 on the ground that application had been filed under Section 20 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on ground of default in payment of arrears of rent which is to be looked by the Court and as such amendment sought by the petitioner regarding proving of bona fide need by the landlord is not required. The judgment dated 17.8.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandauli in P.A. Case No. 1 of 2008 has been confirmed by the District Judge in Civil Revision No. 32 of 2010: Kirshna Kumar Singh v. Shri Prakash Jaiswal, rejecting the said revision vide its order dated 11.1.2011, which has been challenged in the present writ petition. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Courts below have committed manifest error in respect of bona fide need without any cogent evidence which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and as such impugned orders dated 11.1.2011 passed by District Judge in Civil Revision No. 32 of 2010 and order dated 17.8.2010, passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Chandauli, are liable to be set aside. He has further argued that the Apex Court has settled that the object of amendment is to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings and if by means of amendment the nature of the suit is not changed, the amendment may be allowed. He has also submitted that the Courts below have illegally rejected the application 39 Ka without considering the merits of amendment. 7. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent has adopted the reasoning given by the Courts below that bona fide need is not required to be pleaded or proved in an application under Section 20 of Act No. 13 of 1972. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, as well as relevant provisions, it appears that for the purpose of Section 20 (1) (a), the landlord has to prove bona fide need of accommodation in question whereas under Section 20 of the Act, application has been filed on the ground of default in payment of rent. In such circumstances, there is no requirement of any such pleadings for the reason that it is not being sought on the ground of personal need and the amendment sought by the petitioner-tenant was only to delay the proceedings. 9. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner by rejecting the amendment application as well as civil revision filed by the petitioner holding that scope of application under Sections 21 (a) and 20 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is different. 10. 9. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner by rejecting the amendment application as well as civil revision filed by the petitioner holding that scope of application under Sections 21 (a) and 20 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is different. 10. For all the reasons stated above, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter as both the Courts below have not committed any error in rejecting the amendment as well as civil revision filed by the petitioner. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. —————