Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.— Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. First writ petition has been filed by Satish Kumar and Santosh Kumar and the second writ petition has been filed by Satish Kumar and the contesting respondent in both the writ petition is Anupam Narayan Malhotra the landlord. 3. Through first writ petition order dated 18. 1. 2012 passed by Prescribed author-ity/J. S. C. C. Moradabad in P. A. case no. 23 of 2004 Anupam Narayan Vs. Satish Kumar and another has been challenged. The said case is a release application filed by respondent landlord Anupam Narayan against tenants petitioners for eviction/release on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972. Through the second writ petition order dated 31. 1. 2012 passed by the same authority in the same case has been challenged. It has been stated by the petitioners that property in dispute comprised of two shops one of which is in tenancy occupation of Satish Kumar and the other in tenancy occupation of Santosh Singh. In the release application also the same thing was stated. In the release application Satish Kumar is O. P. No. 1, Santosh Singh O. P. No. 3 and it has been stated that one shop is in tenancy occupation of O. P. no. 1 and other in tenancy occupation of O. P. no. 2 and 3. 4. Through order dated 18.1.2012 challenged through the first writ petition, 4 applications filed by the tenants have been rejected. First application (73 C) was filed by opposite party no. 1, in the release application Satish Kumar through which expert report and expert evidence was filed and sought to be brought on record. The report was given by an architect which according to opposite party no. 1 related to other properties of the landlord including their valuation. The second application (77 C) was also filed by opposite party no. 1 Satish Kumar praying for inspection through Amin. The next application (no. 79 C) was also filed by Satish Kumar seeking a direction to the landlord to file certified copies of documents mentioned in the release application and for clarification of some facts. The second application (77 C) was also filed by opposite party no. 1 Satish Kumar praying for inspection through Amin. The next application (no. 79 C) was also filed by Satish Kumar seeking a direction to the landlord to file certified copies of documents mentioned in the release application and for clarification of some facts. The last application 81 C was also given by Satish Kumar seeking permission to take on record additional counter affidavit which was filed by him against additional rejoinder affidavit which had been filed by the landlord. The prescribed authority rejected all the applications. 5. As far as application 73 C is concerned, the trial court rightly observed that valuation of property was not relevant for deciding Section 21 application. As far as application 77-C is concerned, the inspection was sought in respect of the properties mentioned in Annexures no. 1/1 to 1/5 to an affidavit of opposite party no. 1 himself which had already been filed. The trial court rightly held that as evidence had been adduced by the defendant hence it was not essential to get the property inspected by a min and it amounted to collection of evidence. As far as application no. 79 C is concerned that was also frivolous requiring the landlord to file sketch map of the properties mentioned in affidavit 68 Ga and documents pertaining to ownership of the said properties, partition documents, map approved by Moradabad Development Authority, lease deed of Maharaja Hotel, partnership deed in between landlord and his brother and any other relevant document including copies of licence of Maharaja Hotel Bar and restaurant, rent note of other property situate in Mohalla Bhattai and Amaroha belonging to the landlord. This application was also utterly frivolous. It appears that tenants are interested in delaying the proceedings and for the said purpose are filing frivolous applications. Release application is pending for 8 years while under Rule 15 of the Rules framed under the Act it is to be decided within two months. No party can compel the other party to produce evidence which may help the party asking for the same. However, as far as application no. 81 C is concerned in my opinion it was wrongly rejected. The tenants' counter affidavit to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit might be taken on record. 6. Accordingly first writ petition is allowed in part. No party can compel the other party to produce evidence which may help the party asking for the same. However, as far as application no. 81 C is concerned in my opinion it was wrongly rejected. The tenants' counter affidavit to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit might be taken on record. 6. Accordingly first writ petition is allowed in part. Impugned order is set aside only in so far as it rejects tenants application 81 C. The impugned order rejecting other applications is approved. 7. As far as second writ petition is concerned it is directed against order dated 31.1.2012. Through the said order application filed by the tenant seeking amendment in the written statement was rejected. Through the said amendment it was stated that one release application against two tenants was not maintainable. It was also sought to be added that landlord had not clarified as to how provisions of U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972 were attracted and that after filing of the petition tenants tried to search other alternative accommodation, however, they could not get appropriate accommodation. The trial court while rejecting the said application also-observed that evidence had been filed by the tenants on 8. 4. 2008 and thereafter different applications were being filed for delaying the proceedings. I do not find any error in the said order. In the said order it has also been mentioned that pleas sought to be added could be raised during arguments. If tenants wanted to file evidence regarding search and failure of alternative accommodation and their failure in getting the same they could do that by 8. 4. 2008 when they adduced the entire evidence. For such evidence no amendment in the written statement is required. 8. Accordingly, there is absolutely no error in the order challenged through second writ petition hence the same is dismissed. 9. It is quite evident that tenants are very much interested in delaying the proceedings of the release application as the rents are highly inadequate. 10. Accordingly, first writ petition is allowed in part as above and second writ petition is dismissed. 11. It is directed that no further application or affidavit shall be entertained by the trial court/Prescribed Authority except a formal affidavit which landlord may file in rebuttal to the supplementary counter affidavit which has been directed to be taken on record through this writ petition. 11. It is directed that no further application or affidavit shall be entertained by the trial court/Prescribed Authority except a formal affidavit which landlord may file in rebuttal to the supplementary counter affidavit which has been directed to be taken on record through this writ petition. Copy of the same must positively be served upon learned counsel for the tenant before the Court below by 19. 10. 2012 and the same shall be filed before the prescribed authority on 5.11.2012. On 5.11.2012 both the parties shall appear before the prescribed authority and the prescribed authority shall hear the arguments either on the said date or if it is not possible then some other date for hearing the arguments must be fixed which may not be two week away from the said date. The Prescribed authority shall positively decide the release application before the end of the year 2012. _____________