Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, J.— By means of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the tenant/petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash order dated 22.02.2013 passed in Rent Appeal No.45 of 2011, by which amendment application of the respondent/tenant has been rejected. The landlord is opposite party no.2 who has put in appearance and pleadings have been exchanged. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. Admittedly, the petitioner is a tenant of shop of which the opposite party no.2 is landlord who filed release application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 which has been allowed by the learned Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No.10 of 2008. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order the petitioner/tenant has filed appeal. During the course of appeal the petitioner/tenant moved an amendment application before the learned First Appellate Court on the grounds inter alia that the petitioner came to know that the disputed building is situated on Nazul land bearing plot no.183; the application of the landlord for converting Nazul plot into freehold has been rejected on the ground that the land on which the structure is situated have been earmarked in the master plan for road widening; the lease in favour of the landlord/opposite party no.2 has been expired in the year 2008; another plea taken in the amendment application was that this was a subsequent event as the landlord has made an application for conversion of Nazul land into freehold on 14.09.2010 which was not in the knowledge of the tenant earlier; another suit for eviction of adjoining shop in favour of opposite party no.2 has been allowed etc. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the plea of Nazul land has already been taken in the written statement which has been considered during the hearing of appeal and, as such, no amendment can be permitted on this score in the written statement. The learned Trial Court also held that the matter relating to adjoining shop no.63 is still subjudice and the landlord/opposite party no.2 has not obtained possession over the shop in question. I have scrutinized the contents of amendment application and the written statement filed by the petitioner/tenant. The plea sought for to be incorporated by way of amendment already finds place in the written statement. I have scrutinized the contents of amendment application and the written statement filed by the petitioner/tenant. The plea sought for to be incorporated by way of amendment already finds place in the written statement. Mere elaboration is not required under the law. All the pleas sought to be amended have been taken in para 27 of the written statement. While deciding application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 the learned Prescribed Authority or the learned Appellate Court are not required to enter into the factum of ownership. All the matters under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 relate to relationship of landlord and tenant. The settled legal position is that the Court should be more generous in allowing the amendment in the written statement as question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event. But the impugned amendment already finds place in the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said amendment may not be allowed but the amendment regarding eviction of shop no.63 may be allowed. Learned Appellate Court has rightly considered this plea and has rejected it on the ground that the proceedings have not yet been terminated and the landlord/opposite party no.2 has not yet got its possession. The application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is to be decided only on two grounds viz. bonafide requirement of the shop and comparative hardship. The impugned amendment is not necessary in deciding real controversy between the parties. I find that the learned Appellate Court has rightly rejected the amendment application. This Court in the case of Ram Narain v. District Judge, Unnao and Others, [2011 (29) LCD 1721], has correctly decided on the basis of catena of judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court that such amendment should not be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prem Bakshi & Ors. v. Dharam Dev & Ors. [2002 (1) JCLR 590 (SC)]. This law does not help the petitioner in this Case. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. v. K.K. Modi & Ors. v. Dharam Dev & Ors. [2002 (1) JCLR 590 (SC)]. This law does not help the petitioner in this Case. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. v. K.K. Modi & Ors. 2006 AIR SCW 1538, in which it was held:- "The object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.' As discussed above, the real controversy test is the basic or cardinal test and it is the primary duty of the Court to decide whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. If it is, the amendment will be allowed; if it is not, the amendment will be refused." In view of the law as mentioned above, it is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. Liberal approach should be the general rule as opposed to hyper technical approach. But the impugned amendment has no bearing in deciding application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. Nature of landlord's ownership is foreign to the scope of deciding an application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1973, particularly, when admittedly the petitioner is tenant and opposite party no.2 is landlord. I am afraid the impugned amendment has been sought for to prolong the life of litigation. I am reminded of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court In Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar & anr. reported in 2003 AIR SCW 7158, wherein it has been held:- "Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment-debators to deny the decree-holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law's delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system." In Atmaram Properties v.Federal Motors, reported in 2005 (1) S.C.C. 705 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "The landlord/tenant litigation constitutes a large chunk litigations between in the courts and tribunals. The litigation goes on for unreasonable length of time and the tenants in possession of the premises do not miss any opportunity of filing appeals or revisions so long as they can, thereby, afford to perpetuate the life or litigation and continued in occupation of the premises." In view of the discussions as made above, writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. _____________