Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri K.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 7.10.2013 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court /Prescribed Authority under U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act') in Rent Case No. 09 of 2008 (Om Narayan Gupta Vs. Suraj Bhatiya and others) by which the petitioner's application, to reject the release application, on the ground that the respondent/landlord has not filed map along with the release application pursuant to the order dated 30.11.2009, has been rejected on 7.10.2013. It appears that release application was filed by the respondents against the petitioner under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. In the release application, some alternative accommodation was suggested by the landlord, details of which has been mentioned in paragraph 9 of the release application. An objection was raised by the present petitioner that complete map has not been filed along with the release application. It appears with a view to improve the case, the landlord has filed an amendment application along with complete map seeking amendment in the release application with the prayer that instead of earlier map annexed with the release application, the present map be taken into consideration, which was opposed by the present petitioner. The aforesaid application was allowed by the learned prescribed authority vide order dated 31.10.2009 on payment of Rs. 300/- cost with the direction to make necessary amendment within ten days. It appears no amendment pursuant to the order dated 31.10.2009 was made and the date was fixed for evidence of the opposite party (the present petitioner). The present petitioner has again filed an application rejecting the release application on the ground that the petitioner has not amended in the release application in view of the order passed by the prescribed authority on 31.10.2009. 3. Sri Tripathi contends that unless the amendment is made, the case of the petitioner will be prejudiced, as through amendment, an alternative accommodation was suggested by the landlord to be given to the petitioner. It has further been contended by Sri Tripathi that after the order dated 31.10.2009, map was filed on 2.9.2011 and it was got not pressed on 17.11.2012. 4. It has further been contended by Sri Tripathi that after the order dated 31.10.2009, map was filed on 2.9.2011 and it was got not pressed on 17.11.2012. 4. It is not in dispute that the release application is pending and order on merit has yet to be passed, the consequences of not filing of complete map along with the release application or not bring the necessary amendment pursuant to the order dated 31.10.2009 has yet to be examined and seen by the prescribed authority. 5. I do not find any error in the order passed by the learned prescribed authority. The writ petition is dismissed. _______________