JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner who is tenant of the accommodation in dispute, challenges the order passed by the appellate authority dated 19th January 2005 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) whereby the appellate authority has rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in his written statement at the appellate stage in proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. The landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the accommodation in question. This application was registered as P.A. Case No. 96 of 1987. This P.A. case No. 96 of 1987 has been dismissed on 7th February 1991 by the prescribed authority and the order of the prescribed authority was challenged by the landlord before the appellate authority by filing an appeal under Section 22 of the Act which is registered as Appeal No. 53 of 1991 which is pending before the appellate authority. The original appeal No. 53 of 1991 was dismissed for default but subsequently it was restored when the Misc. Case No. 16 of 1995 was allowed. During the pendency of Misc. Case No. 16 of 1995 the appellant, Ramashankar, died on 1.1.1996 and his sons, Saran Bihari and Gopal Goswami, filed substitution application in place of deceased landlord, Ramashankar. This appeal after its restoration as stated above, Case No. 16 of 1995 was dismissed for default on 25th May 1999 and a restoration application filed by Gopal Goswami on 27th May 1999 was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1999. During the pendency of the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 1 of 1999 Ram Bharosey, the respondent-tenant, died on 17th August 1999 and an application for bringing on record the heirs of deceased Ram Bharosey was filed on 14th September 1999. This substitution application was allowed and Misc. Case No. 1 of 1999 and Misc. Case No. 16 of 1995 were restored on its original number.
3. On 19th January 2004 the heirs of deceased Ram Bharosey filed an application 13-Ka for seeking amendment in the written statement. This amendment was allowed after the objection was filed and the amendments were incorporated. After the aforesaid amendment another application was filed for bringing on record certain subsequent events which have not been brought on the record by the landlord, therefore, an application was filed by the tenant seeking further amendment in Para 11 of the written statement to the effect that heir of deceased tenant, Gopal Goswami has succeeded the priestship of temple Bihari Ji and he has sufficient income from, the aforesaid priestship, apart from that he has private Jajmans (clients) due to which he is earning handsome amount. The heirs of deceased are very well to do which is clear from the fact that Gopal Goswami has purchased half portion of the disputed shop by spending Rs. 3 lacs from Sharan Bihari whereas sale deed has been executed only for a sum of Rs. 35,000/-. Subsequently to the aforesaid purchase Gopal Goswami has purchased by another sale deed dated 27th October 2001 from Sharan Bihari his half portion of residential house for a sum of Rs. 7.5 lacs whereas the sale deed was again executed for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs only. Apart from that Gopal Goswami and his daughters are possessing separate Mobile Phones, the value of which is not less than Rs. 10,000/-. Gopal Goswami is contacting his clients throughout the country and abroad on phone for which he pays telephone bills in thousands of rupees per month. The sons and daughters of Gopal Goswami are studying in the highly expensive colleges and expenses on their studies itself is in thousands of rupees which is being spent by Gopal Goswami from his income. Sri Gopal Goswami has recently purchased a Colour T.V. and also he possesses jewelery worth several lacs of rupees. Since Sri Gopal Goswami is already engaged in performing his duties of priest in the temple of Bihari Ji throughout the day right from early morning till late in the night he does not have any time to start any separate business as alleged. It was therefore, prayed that written statement filed by the tenant may be permitted to be amended. It is this application 150 Ga which is filed during the pendency of the appeal which has been decided by the appellate authority by the impugned order dated 19th January 2005.
4. The appellate authority after hearing the parties has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the facts which are sought to be incorporated were already there in Paras 5, 6, 7, 10 and 13 of the written statement with regard to standard of living and income of Sri Gopal Goswami wherein it has been stated that this application has been filed only to delay the appeal which is pending since 1995. The application, therefore, is dismissed.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the view taken by the appellate authority rejecting the amendment application is not correct in view of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court with regard to amendment of pleadings that the amendment can be allowed at any stage of the litigation. So far as the proposition of law submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned there is no dispute. However, since whatever is sought to be brought on the record by way of amendment has already been on the record as observed by the appellate authority and further while deciding Writ Petition No. 4566 of 2005, Ashok Kumar Singh v. Additional District Judge, Jaunpur and Ors., on 1st February 2005 I have held that material sought to be brought on the record by way of amendment at the most can be said to be evidence regarding subsequent facts which the petitioner can bring on record by means of an affidavit with the permission of the Court and particularly in view of order of the appellate authority the amendment is not required. The petitioner, if he is so advised, may, with the permission of the appellate authority before whom the appeal is pending, file an affidavit bringing on record the amendments sought for.
6. In view of the above decision and in view of the facts stated above I do not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned in this petition in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition, therefore, has no force and is dismissed.