Sibghat Ullah Khan,J. Heard Sri J.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for contesting respondents no. 2 to 6. 2. In this writ petition on 22.8.2013 following order was passed:- "Put up on 27.8.2013 as fresh. Learned Additional District Judge, Court No.IV, Lucknow shall explain that why in spite of general directions issued in Ganga Prasad Vs. M/S Hanif Opticians 2005 (2) ARC 723 unconditional stay order has been granted by him to the tenant in Rent Appeal No.29/12; Ram Kumar vs. Sunil Kumar and others. Learned Additional District Judge shall also state as to whether normally he is granting unconditional stay orders to the tenants or the instant case was an exception. Learned District Judge, Lucknow shall also immediately inquire from all other Additional District Judges as to whether they are normally granting stay orders unconditionally to the tenants or imposing conditions. It must also be explained that why learned D.J. and ADJs of Lucknow are so kind upon the tenants. The Court has taken a serious view of the matter. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to learned District Judge, Lucknow by tomorrow." 3. Learned District Judge has sent the report in compliance of the said order. The Judge concerned has apologized for granting unconditional stay order. Apology is accepted and he shall be careful in future. Petitioner is tenant. Landlord filed release application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the tenant petitioner. Tenant filed written statement copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Release application was allowed on 31.5.2012 by Prescribing Authority/J.S.C.C., Lucknow passed in P.A. Case No. 19 of 2012. Against the said order tenant petitioner has filed Rent Appeal No.29 of 2012, which is pending before A.D.J., Court No.4, Lucknow. Rate of rent is Rs.200/-per month. Accommodation in dispute is one room accommodation situate at Sadar Bazar, Lucknow. In case the lower appellate court had granted conditional stay order, tenant would not have made efforts to delay the proceedings. As held by the Supreme Court in M/s. Reoajeetu Builders vs. M/s. N. Swami, 2009(10) SCC 84 : 2009 (3) ARC 502 the most patent device for delaying the proceedings is to file amendment application. Petitioner also in the appeal filed amendment application seeking amendment in the written statement. The court below dismissed the amendment application on 17.7.2013. As held by the Supreme Court in M/s. Reoajeetu Builders vs. M/s. N. Swami, 2009(10) SCC 84 : 2009 (3) ARC 502 the most patent device for delaying the proceedings is to file amendment application. Petitioner also in the appeal filed amendment application seeking amendment in the written statement. The court below dismissed the amendment application on 17.7.2013. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. 4. As far as proposed amendment through which paragraphs no. 22(A), 22(B), 22(C) and 22(1) were sought to be added in the W.S. are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents states that he has got no objection to the correctness of assertions made therein. In the said paragraphs only the dimensions of the rooms and strength of tenants' family has been given. Number of rooms had already been mentioned in the written statement. 5. The other amendments sought are utterly irrelevant. If landlords are occupying some house as tenant, that cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the release application. Accordingly amendment application is allowed in part. Paragraphs No. 22(A), 22(B), 22(C) and 22(1) are permitted to be added in written statement. In other paragraphs, it has been mentioned that different petitioners are residing in their own houses. However no exact address has been given. Para 22(F) is to the following effect: 6. That the applicant no.4 Dinesh Kumar is residing in his own house at Vrindavan Colony, Telibagh, Lucknow. 7. Such a vague assertion cannot be permitted to be made. Moreover there is absolutely no explanation as to why there pleas were not taken in the original W.S. All such pleas could be taken in the original written statement. 17 paragraphs have been sought to be added from 22-A to 22-Q while in the original written statement there were only three effective paragraphs i.e. paragraphs No.20, 21 and 22. The allegation that previous counsel was incompetent is scandalous. The counsel who made such allegation in the amendment application against his colleague has betrayed the fraternity of the bar. Accordingly impugned order is modified and amendment application is allowed only to the above extent. 8. Let the four paragraphs 22(A), 22(B), 22(C) and 22(I) be added in the written statement either on 6.9.2013 or latest on 7.9.2013 which is the date fixed before the court below. Learned counsel for the respondents states that respondents do not propose to file any application etc. 8. Let the four paragraphs 22(A), 22(B), 22(C) and 22(I) be added in the written statement either on 6.9.2013 or latest on 7.9.2013 which is the date fixed before the court below. Learned counsel for the respondents states that respondents do not propose to file any application etc. for amendment. No affidavit from any side shall be taken on record by the lower appellate court. 9. All efforts must be made to hear the arguments in the appeal on 7.9.2013 or latest on the next date. It is further directed that until decision of the suit, eviction of the petitioner shall remain stayed on the condition that he pays to the landlord by depositing the same before the lower appellate court. Rs.650/-per month as damages for use and occupation w.e.f. September, 2013 by 7th of each succeeding month. The unpaid rent shall also be deposited either on 7.9.2013 or on the next date. 10. Writ petition is disposed of. 11. Office is directed to supply certified copy of this order on payment of usual changes to learned counsel for both the parties by tomorrow, if possible. ________________