JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 16.11.2019 passed by the Prescribed Authority i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, in P.A. Case No.57 of 2015: Smt. Ram Kumari and Another Vs. Narain Dass. 3. By the order impugned, the application for amendment Paper no. C-44 of the written statement moved by the petitioner who is the respondent/ tenant has been rejected. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the tenant of a shop situated in ground floor of a building facing Gungay Nawab Park (Ram Krishna Park), Aminabad, Lucknow, on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. Sri Rajeev Agarwal the respondent no.3 is the landlord of the property in question. One Mukund Lal filed a Suit for eviction against the petitioner alleging himself to be the landlord. The said Suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit no.67 of 1990: Mukund Lal Agarwal Vs. Narain Das, and allowed on 19.12.1992. The petitioner preferred a S.C.C. Revision No.07 of 1993. The Revision was allowed on 04.09.1993 holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Mukund Lal Agarwal and the petitioner. 5. Against the order passed by the Revisional Court, Mukund Lal Agarwal filed a Writ Petition No.158 (Rent Control) of 1993 before this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, Mukund Lal Agarwal died. He had bequeathed the property in dispute in favour of Smt. Ram Kumari. On the basis of a Will, Smt. Ram Kumari moved an application for substitution in the Writ Petition No.158 (Rent Control) of 1993 which was allowed. Smt. Ram Kumari was substituted in place of the original petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court by a detailed order dated 11.2.2013. The Court enhanced the rent from Rs.200/-per month to Rs.2,000/-per month, which was to be given to the landlords Smt. Ram Kumari and Rajeev Agarwal by the tenant with effect from 2014 and in case rent was not paid to the landlords, Smt. Ram Kumari and Rajeev Agarwal, they could jointly file a Suit for eviction against the tenant on grounds of non-payment of rent. The respondent nos.2 and 3 i.e. Smt. Ram Kumari and Sri Rajeev Agarwal did not file any Suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of payment of rent. They however jointly filed a Release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for release of shop in question as it was needed by the daughters-in-law of Smt. Ram Kumari i.e. for the wife of Sri Rajeev Agarwal and wife of Sri Sandeep Agarwal, her two sons. The petitioner filed a written statement denying any need of the plaintiffs on the basis of vague averments made in the release application. When the matter was ripe for hearing and the counsel was preparing the case for arguments, it came to the knowledge of the petitioners that in pursuance of judgment passed in Writ Petition No.158 (Rent Control) of 1993, Smt. Ram Kumari and Sri Rajeev Agarwal had been recognized as landlords although the Court had not expressed any opinion with regard to the title of the shop in question. 6. It has been submitted by Sri Vijay Krishna Srivastava that at no point of time the petitioner had recognized the respondent no.2 as his landlady. The petitioner was paying the rent only to the respondent no.3 Rajeev Agarwal, who was the landlord therefore the application for release under Section 21 (1)(a) was not maintainable on behalf of Smt. Ram Kumari and an application for amendment was therefore moved for permission to amend the written statement to add paragraph-22A and 22B after the existing paragraph-22 of the written statement. The application for amendment was objected to by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. The trial court wrongly rejected the application for amendment by the impugned order. In doing so, the High Court’s order was ignored by the trial court. The High Court had observed that Smt. Ram Kumari and Sri Rajeev Agarwal were at liberty to file a fresh Suit on any ground which is available to them which meant that Suit could only have been filed under Section 20 of the Rent Control Act and not under Section 21 by way of a release application before the Prescribed Authority. Smt. Ram Kumari had not been recognized as landlady, she could not pray for release of bonafide shop in favour of her daughters-in-law to establish them in business. 7. Smt. Ram Kumari had not been recognized as landlady, she could not pray for release of bonafide shop in favour of her daughters-in-law to establish them in business. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that trial court has ignored the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar Vs. Ram Kishan 2005 (13) SCC 89 , wherein the Supreme Court had observed that amendment even at the final stage of litigation could be allowed, if it was necessary for the purpose of deciding the real question in controversy between the parties. Refusal to permit amendment was likely to create needless complications at stage of Execution, more so when error in question had been pointed out in written statement. It held that the amendment should have been allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Usha Devi Vs. Rijwan Ahmad and others 2008 (3) SCC 717 , wherein it was observed that merit of the proposed amendment was not to be seen by the trial court while deciding the application for amendment. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon Ramesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Rajmala Exports Private Limited and others reported in 2012 (5) SCC 337 , where the Supreme Court had observed that the learned trial court should not ordinarily refuse bonafide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit malafide and dishonest amendments. Though the amendments proposed cannot be claimed as a matter of right but the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hypertechnical approach. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon several other judgments i.e. Baldev Singh and others Vs. Manohar Singh 2006 (6) SCC 498 ; Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Makhan Singh 2009 (27) LCD 1483 ; and Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and another 2002 (7) SCC 559 . 11. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the case in any manner. Learned trial court committed an error in law while rejecting the application for amendment made by the tenant. 12. Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3, has referred to his counter affidavit filed on 31.01.2020. Learned trial court committed an error in law while rejecting the application for amendment made by the tenant. 12. Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3, has referred to his counter affidavit filed on 31.01.2020. It has been submitted that application for release made under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act of 1972 on 09.09.2015 is still pending before the trial court even after seven years. The matter had been heard by the trial court and had been fixed for final arguments on 27.01.2020, whereafter the petitioner had moved the amendment application. By means of the said amendment application, the petitioner had tried to dispute right of the respondent no.2 to file the release application as she was not recognized as the landlady but rent was being given to Sri Rajeev Agarwal the respondent no.3 and he alone was recognized by the petitioner as landlord of the property in question. The reason for the amendment proposed to be made was to remove the very basis of moving the release application and was malafide and dishonest in nature going against the very observations made by the High Court in its judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 in Writ Petition No.158 (Rent Control) of 1993. 13. Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent, has taken this Court through the entire judgment rendered by this Court earlier on 11.12.2013, and has submitted that this Court had recognized Smt. Ram Kumari as the landlady along with her son Sri Rajeev Agarwal as landlord, therefore, it was directed by this Court that rent was to be given to both jointly. The petitioner had moved a Review Application No.26 of 2014 praying for review of the order dated 11.12.2013 which was also rejected by the Court on 15.01.2014. The Review Application was made on a different ground altogether as is evident from perusal of annexure-7 to the writ petition which is a copy of the order dated 15.01.2014 passed by this Court on the Review Application. The petitioner did not protest against the observations made by the High Court nor filed any review/ modification/ correction application in the earlier Writ Petition No.158 (Rent Control) of 1993 praying for the Court to modify its order and to remove the name of Smt. Ram Kumari as the landlady. The petitioner did not protest against the observations made by the High Court nor filed any review/ modification/ correction application in the earlier Writ Petition No.158 (Rent Control) of 1993 praying for the Court to modify its order and to remove the name of Smt. Ram Kumari as the landlady. In the written statement filed before the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner had recognized Smt. Ram Kumari as landlady. Later on, by means of the proposed amendment, a dispute was tried to be created with regard to Smt. Ram Kumari only because the petitioner wanted to remove the basis of filing the release application by the landlady expressing a bonafide need of the shop in question to establish her two daughters-in-law. Learned trial court has rightly rejected the application by the order impugned and this Court should not interfere in such an order. 14. This Court has considered the order impugned dated 16.11.2019 which mentions the fact of the tenant filing the application Paper No.C-44 and also the objections filed by the landlord to such amendment application. The Court had perused this Court’s earlier order dated 11.12.2013 and has mentioned the same also in the order and thereafter rejected the same on grounds that it had been moved with extreme delay at the time when evidence had been led by both the parties and their case had been fixed for arguments. Also, it has been observed by the trial court that whatever the tenant wished to bring on record by means of the proposed amendment was already there as mention of the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 had been made by the petitioner in his written statement itself. The facts as mentioned in the High Court’s order could not be denied by him. 15. This Court finds no good ground to show interference in such an order which has considered all the facts as also the papers available in the file. 16. In so far as the first judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, this Court has gone through the judgment rendered in Sajjan Kumar Vs. 15. This Court finds no good ground to show interference in such an order which has considered all the facts as also the papers available in the file. 16. In so far as the first judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, this Court has gone through the judgment rendered in Sajjan Kumar Vs. Ram Kishan, where the proposed amendment were with respect to the correct description of the Suit property in the plaint and, therefore, the Supreme Court had observed that such amendment should be permitted even though filed with delay as non amendment of the pleading and failure to describe the Suit property in question correctly would create needless complication at the stage of execution in the event of success of plaintiff in the Suit. 17. The second judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Usha Devi Vs. Rijwan Ahamad and others, wherein the Supreme Court was considering the amendment petition having been filed after framing of issues and observed that Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 which bars delayed amendment of pleadings is referable to the stage after commencement of trial. In this case also there was error in describing the property in plaint schedule. The defendants filed the written statement raising the question of wrong description. No rejoinder was filed to the written statement by the plaintiff. Issues were framed on the basis of pleadings. The proceedings in the Suit lingered and the plaintiff filed a Misc. Application alleging breach of interim injunction. An amendment application was later on filed by the plaintiffs stating that due to inadvertence the said land was wrongly described in the plaint schedule and the mistake is liable to be corrected. The amendment application was rejected by the learned trial court giving finding of lack of due diligence. The Supreme Court held that in view of the error of description of property in plaint, the defendant had to suffer injunction against their own property. In such a case ends of justice would be met by allowing the proposed amendment subject to payment of cost by the plaintiff. 18. In Ramesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Rajmala Exports Private Limited 2012 (5) SCC 337 , a Suit was filed for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property, pleading that the entire consideration under the agreement had been paid. 18. In Ramesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Rajmala Exports Private Limited 2012 (5) SCC 337 , a Suit was filed for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property, pleading that the entire consideration under the agreement had been paid. The amendment application was filed immediately after filing of the Suit and before commencement of trial, seeking to explain how and in what manner such payment of consideration was made by the plaintiff giving details of the payments. The Court observed that the proposed amendment would not alter the cause of action nor it would cause any inconsistency in the case of the plaintiff or prejudice the appellant/defendant. 19. In Baldev Singh and others Vs. Manohar Singh and another, the Supreme Court was considering the amendment of written statement by the defendants and how it was different from amendment of plaint and it observed in paragraph 15 and 16 that inconsistent pleas can be raised by the defendants in the written statement although the same may not be permissible in the case of the plaintiff. It relied upon the judgment rendered by it earlier in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Ladha Ram and Company 1976 (4) SCC 320 , where the Supreme Court had held that inconsistent or alternative pleas can be made in the written statement. The Judgment in Baldev Singh (supra) cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner wherein the petitioner clearly admitted in the written statement itself that it recognized Smt. Ram Kumari as landlord on the basis of a judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.158 (Rent Control) of 1993. 20. In Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Makhan Singh, the Supreme Court has observed that even if the prayer for amendment was a belated one, then also the question that needs to be decided is whether by allowing the amendment the real controversy between the parties may be resolved. Under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. wide powers and unfettered discretion have been conferred on the Court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such a manner and on such terms as it appears to the Court just and proper. 21. In Sampath Kumar Vs. Under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. wide powers and unfettered discretion have been conferred on the Court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such a manner and on such terms as it appears to the Court just and proper. 21. In Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and another, the Supreme Court had observed that amendment can be allowed at any stage and the question of delay in moving amendment application should be decided not by calculating the period from the date of institution of Suit alone but by reference to the stage to which the hearing of the Suit had proceeded. Pre-trial amendment are allowed very liberally than those which are sought to be made after commencement of trial or after conclusion thereof. 22. This Court has perused the amendment application and finds that the observations made by the learned trial court regarding the fact that it would not be just and proper to allow such amendment application at such belated stage to be rightly rejected and a judicious exercise of its power. 23. This Court having perused the said judgments of the Supreme Court finds no observations therein which would be in favour of the petitioner. 24. The petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits.