Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26984 Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2001 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ravi Kumar Trehan Respondent :- Smt. Santosh Grover And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- J.P. Singh Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 01.01.2025 in Rent Case No. 1311 of 2022, whereby, the amendment application moved by the tenant/ petitioner seeking amendment in paragraph no. 4 of the written statement has come to be rejected. 4. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that though pleading was taken to the effect that Shyam Lal Grover was not the landlord and hence he had no right to let out the premises in question to the father of the petitioner, but after getting certain crucial observation upon an application moved under the Right to Information Act from the Tehsildar concerned, he came to know that the original allottee of the shop was K. Sharma and thereafter, no record was available from which it could be known that Shyam Lal Grover succeeded the original allottee. 5. In the circumstances, therefore, it is contended by Mr. Singh that this subsequent knowledge vide information was sufficient ground to move an amendment application in the written statement. 6. Per contra it is submitted by Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent that sufficient plea has already been taken in paragraph no. 11 of the written statement filed by the petitioner to the effect that the release applicant was not the landlord of the premises in question, inasmuch as, a plea has been taken in paragraph no. 4 of the additional statement to the written statement that landlord/ respondent was wrongly claiming to be the owner of the property although the applicant did admit that the premises in question was let out to the father of the petitioner by Shyam Lal Grover. He submits that allowing this amendment denying absolutely the title of the landlord/ respondent would amount to withdrawal of the statement made in paragraph no. 4. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the record, I find that this rent case was instituted for release of the premises in question by the landlord/ respondent in the year 2018 and the written statement was filed with specific plea taken that although the premises in question was let out by Sri Shyam Lal Grover to the father of the petitioner but he was not owner and title holder of the premises in question and hence had no right to file release application. These pleas which have been there in the written statement already clarified the stand of the defendant with regard to release application for the defence he had already set up and therefore, further amendment only on the basis of certain information received under Right to Information Act does not appeal to reason. The pleadings that have already been taken in the written statement can always be supported with material evidence in the form of documents and in the event petitioner has obtained certain documents under the Right to Information Act, it is always open for him to lead these documents in support of the pleadings already raised. 8. In such circumstances, therefore, I do not find any manifest error in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority in rejecting the amendment application. However, liberty rests with the petitioner to lead any document in support of the pleadings already taken in the written statement and the Prescribed Authority would permit the petitioner to lead such document and also would permit the landlord to lead document in rebuttal before closing the evidence of the parties. 9. With the liberty granted as above, this petition stands disposed of with direction to the Prescribed Authority to endeavour to conclude entire P.A. case finally within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 IrfanUddin Digitally signed by :- IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad