IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1123 of 2007 Mukesh Kumar Agrawal S/O Late Sri Rajendra Prasad Agrawal, R/O Mohalla Ganj, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. … Petitioner. Versus Smt. Neeta Agrawal, W/O Sri Rajeev Kumar Agrawal, R/O Mohalla Ganj, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. … Respondent. Mr. B.S.Adhikari, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Gopal Krishna, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. Date June 08, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 2-8-2007 (Annexure-1) passed by the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Rent Control Appeal No. 7 of 2006, Mukesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Neeta Agrawal, whereby the amendment application (paper no. 18-C/1) moved by the petitioner-appellant has been rejected. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent-landlord filed an application for release of the shop in question under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority Kashipur, which was registered as Rent Control Case No. 5 of 2004. Written statement was filed in the case and evidence was led by the rival parties before the Prescribed Authority. Ultimately, by order dated 24-8-2006, the application for release was allowed and the landlord was directed to pay compensation equivalent to two years’ rent to the tenant/petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge Udham Singh Nagar, which has been registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 7 of 2006. 2 It appears that during the pendency of appeal, the petitioner-appellant moved an application for amendment at the end of para 20 of the written statement as well as at the end of para 8 of memo of appeal. The learned appellate court by its order dated 2-8-2007 has rejected the amendment application of the petitioner-appellant on the ground that the amendment application has been moved just to prolong the proceedings of appeal and the facts sought to be added in the written statement and memo of appeal were within the knowledge of the petitioner-appellant during the pendency of the case before the Prescribed Authority and that the application has been moved after 10 months of filing of appeal. The main ground of challenge raised in this writ petition is that the facts proposed to be added in the written statement and memo of appeal by way of amendment application came to the knowledge of the petitioner during the pendency of appeal. On behalf of the respondent, counter affidavit has been filed wherein the averments made in the memo of writ petition have been simply denied. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent has nowhere asserted in the counter affidavit that the facts sought to be added were within the knowledge of the petitioner during the pendency of case before the Prescribed Authority and the proposed amendment does not change the nature of defence put forth by the petitioner in the written statement in any manner. The petitioner has annexed copy of the amendment application as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. I have perused the amendment application as well as the impugned order passed by the 3 learned District Judge. The amendment application has been rejected mainly on the ground that the same has been moved to prolong the proceedings of appeal and the application has been moved belatedly. In my view the approach of the appellate court is not justified. Admittedly the proposed amendment does not change the nature of defence. The other party can be adequately compensated by award of cost. In the above facts and circumstances it would be in the fitness of things as well as in the interest of justice that the amendment application moved by the petitioner is allowed subject to payment of cost. The writ petition therefore deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. Costs easy. The impugned order dated 2-8-2007 passed by the learned appellate court is set aside. The amendment application (paper no. 18-A/1) moved by the petitioner before the appellate court is allowed subject payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand) to the respondent, payable within a period of two weeks from today. After the payment of cost, as directed, the amendment be incorporated within a period of one week before the appellate court. Since the appeal is pending since the year 2006, the appellate court shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously, without further delay in the matter. Both the parties shall co-operate in the speedy disposal of the appeal before the court concerned. Interim order dated 10-10-2007 passed by this Court is vacated. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP