WPMS No.478 of 2005 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Arvind Vashisht, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for the respondent. The landlord’s application under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No.13 of 1972 was rejected against which he preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the landlord filed an application for amendment of his application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. In the application, the landlord prayed that in addition to his need for the premises for commercial purposes, he also requires it for his personal need. This application was allowed against which the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. In my opinion, this is an interlocutory order against which the writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 16.07.2010 LSR