IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 654 of 2006 (M/S) Mahendra Pratap Sah and others ..……… Petitioners Versus Smt. Raj Sachdeva W/o Late Shri P.N. Sachdeva ……… Respondent Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.S. Bisht, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Sudhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri M.S. Bisht, the learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioners are the landlord and filed the release application for the release of a residential premises against the opposite party on the ground of personal need u/S 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. During the pendency of the application and, after the evidence has been filed by the landlord, an application was filed by the opposite party for amendment of her written statement. The amendment sought was to the effect that the original tenant was the husband who died in the year 1963 and upon her death, her daughters and sons also became tenants in common and were, therefore, liable to be impleaded and that the application u/S 21 was liable to be rejected for non impleadment of the necessary parties. This application was opposed by the landlord alleging that the opposite party was the tenant of the premises in question and that her children were not living in the premises and were not the necessary parties in so far as the release application was concerned. The Prescribed Authority, after considering the matter, allowed the amendment application on payment of cost of Rs. 200/-. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the provision of Order 1 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. and submitted that in 2 view of the said provision, the amendment could not have been allowed after the evidence was led. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. Amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, even in an appeal and, in the present case, only an amendment has been sought, the rebuttal of which, can be given by the plaintiff by filing a supplementary rejoinder affidavit. Further, parties have to lead the evidence by way of affidavits and it is always open to the plaintiff to contest and contend that the children of the opposite parties who are not residing in the premises in question and are not necessary parties in view of the definition of ‘family’ as contemplated u/s 3 (g) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, this court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 10th November, 2010 Shiv