JUDGMENT Shri Narayan Shukla, J. Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr Mohammad Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate. 2. Instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 25 th July, 2005, passed by the Additional District Judge, Kheri on the amendment application no. C/130 as well as Application No. C/131 moved in Revision No. 18-A of 1998. 3. Briefly facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 filed S.C.C. Suit No. 11/1991 before the Small Causes Court, Lakhimpur kheri for payment of arrears of rent as well as for petitioner's eviction from the shop in question and also to pay the damages. Small Causes Court decreed the suit by means of judgment and order dated 29.8.1998. Aggrieved petitioner/ defendant challenged the order, passed by the Small Causes Court through revision registered as Revision No. 118-A of 1998 in which the petitioner, who claims himself as tenant moved an application no. Ka/ 130 for amendment whereby he proposed to insert the facts that erstwhile owner, namely, Murlidhar created a trust by way of Will and appointed Mr Krishna Mohan and Prahalad Kumar as trustees of the trust. 4. Through another application registered as C/131 the petitioner sought permission to bring on record the judgment of the High Court. The learned revisional court allowed the application no. C/131 in the interest of justice but it rejected the application no. C/ 130 on the ground that the High Court in W.P.No. 55 of 2005 has not finally determined as to who is the landlord of the land of the tenancy part and further the portion occupied by the revisionist is also disputed. The Court has already framed issues on the question of ownership of the house, upon which the parties have led their evidences. Therefore, at this stage the application for amendment could not be allowed. 5. The said order, passed by the revisional court is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 6. A bare perusal of the record shows that earlier the dispute of ownership of the shop in question arose between one Badri Prasad and Smt. Anar Devi. Badri Prasad claimed himself as adopted son of Lala Murlidhar Agrawal whereas Smt. Anar Devi contested the claim on the ground that on the basis of the Will executed by Lala Murlidhar Agrawal in her favour, she is only heir of Lala Murlidhar Agrawal. Badri Prasad claimed himself as adopted son of Lala Murlidhar Agrawal whereas Smt. Anar Devi contested the claim on the ground that on the basis of the Will executed by Lala Murlidhar Agrawal in her favour, she is only heir of Lala Murlidhar Agrawal. Lala Murlidhar Agrawal, owner of the shop executed three Wills in her favour; first on 27.11.1950, second on 19.7.1958 and third on 15..4.1975. The trial court recognised only the first Will dated 27.11.1950 executed in her favour. Badri Prasad being aggrieved with the order of the trial court filed Civil Appeal No. 113 of 1991 which was dismissed. Then Second Appeal no. 214 of 1996 before this Court which is pending consideration. Smt. Anar Devi filed a suit being Suit No. 3/ 1981 for ejectment of the tenant in which the petitioner appeared as defendant and submitted that since there are two claimants of rent, he deposited the rent in the court and is regularly depositing the same in the Court. The trial court decreed the suit of Smt. Anar Devi. 7. In another set of dispute for the same property respondent no. 2 filed two cases before the Prescribed Authority against two tenants, namely, Jagdish Chand and Prem Shanker Agrawal which were registered as Rent Case no. 8/1999 and 7/ 1998. The Prescribed Authority decreed the suit. Therefore, Jagdish Chand and Prem Shanker Agrawal challenged the order , passed by the Prescribed Authority through Rent Case No. 8/1999 and 4 of 2002. Both were dismissed. Then they filed W.P.No. 47 (RC) of 2005 and 55 (RC) of 2005. Since in both the writ petitions by common questions were involved about the tenancy of a portion of the same very house no. 826, this Court decided both the writ petitions, by common judgment and order dated 25.5.2005. Relevant operative portion of the order is extracted below, " The Prescribed Authority, first of all, shall decide whether the respondents making the applications for release come within the purview of the definition of' landlord' and if it answers the issue in favour of the respondents, then alone it shall proceed to examine whether the disputed premises can be released or not on the ground of bona fide requirement of the respondents. The Prescribed Authority may afford fresh opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence for and against their respective versions to enable it to determine the controversy finally and effectively." 8. On the premise of the aforesaid directives of this Court, the Additional District Judge through the order impugned rejected the petitioner's application for amendment with the observation that still the question of ownership has not been decided whereas with respect this question the issue has been framed. 9. Considering the whole facts of the case, it is clear that there are three sets of claimants of the property of Murlidhar; one, Mr Badri Prasad, who claimed himself as adopted son of landlord Murlidhar, second Smt. Anardevi, who claims her right and title of tenancy part of the house in question on the basis of Will executed in her favour and third one, the trustees Krishna Mohan and Prahlad Kumar on the basis of trust created by Lala Murlidhar Agrawal by way of Will. They claimed that on the basis of Will their rights can be recognised under the eye of law. 10. The application for amendment shows that through proposed amendment the petitioner has intended to insert the fact of creation of trust in favour of Krishna Mohan and Prahalad Kumar. However, the court below has rejected the application for amendment on the ground that still the ownership is disputed and the same has to be adjudicated upon by the Prescribed Authority under the order of this Court. 11. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed several decisions to take notice of the law of amendment of the plaint which are referred to as under; (I) 2008 (8) SCC 511 North Eastern Railway Administration Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das, (II) 1985 (3) L.C.D. 258 Ambika Prasad Dwivedi Vs. Harihar Prasad (iii) 1984 (2) L.C.D. 62 (S.C) Vineet Kumar Vs. Mangal Sen. 12. However, I am of the view that once this Court issued directives to decide the question of ownership of the house in question and then only proceed to examine the question of release of the portion in favour of person who is declared owner, it is appropriate for the parties to get decided the aforesaid questions finally so that the person declared as landlord may be entitled to claim the necessary amendments in the plaint accordingly. Since the revisional court has proceeded and made observation under the teeth of judgment of this Court, I do not find error in the order impugned. 13. However, it is provided that the person, who is declared landlord shall be entitled to move an application for amendment to insert the necessary facts in the pleadings. 14. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed.