JUDGMENT Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—This writ petition is directed against order dated 5.10.2012 passed by Prescribed Authority in P. A. Case No. 02 of 2011 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, (herein after referred to as the “Act”) rejecting the application moved by the tenant-petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Brief facts as emerge out from the pleadings of the writ petition are that respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for the release of the shop in dispute on the ground of need to establish the business for his younger son. The application was contested by the petitioner-tenant by filing written statement. During the pendency of the proceedings after the trial had commenced and the matter was being fixed for hearing an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement was moved which was rejected. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that parties are at liberty to amend their pleadings which is necessary and essential for adjudication of the dispute and the same is to be allowed liberally and the Prescribed Authority committed an error of law in rejecting the amendment application. Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abdul Rehman and another v. Mohd. Ruldu and others, {2012 (3) ARC 619 (SC). 5. In reply, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that facts sought to be brought on record by way of amendment were already existing in the written statement and the amendment was moved at a highly belated stage when the trial had already commenced with sole intention to delay the proceedings and the same has rightly been rejected by the Prescribed Authority. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. Release application was filed by respondent-landlord on the allegation that shop was genuinely and bona fidely required for establishing his younger son in the business of mobile repairing and recharging of the mobile connections. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. Release application was filed by respondent-landlord on the allegation that shop was genuinely and bona fidely required for establishing his younger son in the business of mobile repairing and recharging of the mobile connections. It was also pleaded that petitioner-tenant was already having a shop of his own which is just adjacent to the shop in dispute where he is running sweet shop in the name and style of “Gopal Sweet House” and there was no requirement and the shop was being occupied by him. It was also pleaded that just about 15-20 yards from the shop in question, petitioner-tenant has constructed a huge residential house wherein also there are two shops which have been let out at high rent. 8. Allegations made in the release application were denied by the petitioner-tenant in his written statement. It was pleaded that because of the old age, landlord-respondent was not in a position to run any business and the existing business of mobile repairing at tenanted shop at Gandhi Road was actually being looked after by his younger son and there was no need to set up a separate business for him. 9. After the stage of evidence was over and the matter was being fixed for hearing, petitioner-tenant moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend written statement by adding certain paragraphs. Through the amendment application, following facts were sought to be added in the written statement : (i) that the applicant-landlord in P. A. Case No. 03 of 1994 initiated by landlord for his ejectment had set up a case that present shop was not suited for his business as it is situated in a lane where he could not carry the business successfully. (ii) that the shop in dispute was not suited for the business to be set up for his son as the said business cannot be carried out in a small shop; (iii) that earlier case No. 03 of 1994 was initiated by the landlord of the shop seeking ejectment of the respondent, herein, was collusive as despite the application having been allowed till date landlord of the said shop has not taken over possession; (iv) that son of the respondent for whose need the release of the shop in question has been set up is not unemployed as he has purchased two plots on 6.4.2010 and has raised construction thereon. 10. Prescribed Authority has rejected the amendment application on the finding that facts sought to be added by way of amendment that landlord-respondent in earlier case No. 03 of 1994 has set up the case that the present shop in dispute was not suited for his business was irrelevant in as much as in the present case, release of the shop was sought for the business of his younger son and not for his own business. In respect to the amendment sought with respect to the shop in dispute being small and unfit for establishing the proposed business, the fact has already been mentioned in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the written statement. Facts being brought on record by way of amendment in respect of there being collusion between the respondent, herein and the landlord of the shop at Gandhi Road in which he was a tenant being collusive has been rejected on the ground that there is no relevance in as much as the release of shop in dispute was sought on the ground of need of his son and not for his own business. The other amendment sought with regard to the fact that son of the landlord-respondent has purchased two plots and has raised construction is already contained in the written statement and thus, the said amendment was also not required. 11. Order VI Rule 17 CPC provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Order VI Rule 17 CPC provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. However, in view of the proviso, no application for amendment is liable to be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that parties seeking amendment could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial inspite of due diligence. 12. The object of the rule is that Court should try and adjudicate the case on merits and 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 other side. 13. It is, no doubt, correct that Hon’ble Apex Court in series of decision has held that the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceeding in the interest of justice. Even in the case of Abdul Rehman and another v. Mohd. Ruldu and others (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same view has been expressed. It may be relevant to quote paragraph 7 of the said reports : “It is clear that parties to the suit are permitted to bring forward amendment of their pleadings at any stage of the proceeding for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between them. The Courts have to be liberal in accepting the same, if the same is made prior to the commencement of the trial. If such application is made after the commencement of the trial, in that event, the Court has to arrive at a conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 14. The concept that all the amendments should be liberally allowed does not mean that any amendment sought by the party in the pleadings irrespective of the fact the same already exists or is irrelevant and not germane to the controversy requiring adjudication is also to be allowed. If this interpretation is given to the concept then litigation between the parties would never come to an end. If this interpretation is given to the concept then litigation between the parties would never come to an end. It is only where amendments are necessary for proper and effective adjudication of dispute between the parties on merits then the same should not be rejected on technical ground. The amendments if allowed in any given case may require fresh evidence which would unnecessarily delay the disposal of the proceedings and for this reason, the Legislature put a rider by enacting a proviso to Order VI Rule 17 providing that after the commencement of trial litigant seeking amendment in the pleadings has to demonstrate that despite due diligence, the fact could not be mentioned in the pleadings. Obvious purpose of enacting the proviso is to discourage unwarranted amendments being sought in the pleadings with the purpose of delaying the disposal of the proceedings. 15. In the case in hand, the facts sought to be added by way of amendment by the petitioner were either already existing in the written statement or were not germane and irrelevant to the controversy. Further, the application was moved after the trial had commenced without specifying the reasons that the facts could not be raised or mentioned in the pleadings before the commencement of trial. The only reason mentioned in the amendment application and the affidavit filed in support thereof is that at the time of preparation of the case, it transpired that facts were left out from being mentioned in the written statement. Petitioner has not even asserted that facts were not within his knowledge as such despite due diligence could not be mentioned in the written statement. 16. Thus, it appears that amendment application was not bona fide and was made at a highly belated stage after the trial had commenced only with sole intention to delay disposal of the proceedings and the same has rightly been rejected by the Prescribed Authority. 17. In view of the above facts and discussions, no illegality is reflected in the impugned order which may require any interference by this Court. 18. Writ petition accordingly fails and stands dismissed in limine. ——————