The court upheld the authority's dismissal of the amendment application and emphasized the lack of merits in the writ petition.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 1. 5. 2002 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition)and the order dated 24. 8. 2002 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition ).

( 2 ) THE dispute relates to enhancement of rent in respect of a premises situated in Deoria-Kasia road, district Deoria, the detail of which have been in the application under Section 21 (8) of the u. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "the Act") referred to hereinafter. The said premises has hereinafter been referred to as the disputed premises.

( 3 ) FROM the allegation made in the writ petition, it appears that the respondent No. 3 filed an application dated 20. 12. 1985 under Section 21 (8) of the U. P, Act No. 13 of 1972, inter alia, praying for enhancement of rent in respect of the disputed premises from Rs. 300 per month to rs. 13,750 per month with effect from 1. 1. 1986. It was, inter alia, alleged in the said application that the respondent No. 3 was the landlord and owner of the disputed accommodation ; and that the petitioner had been in occupation of the disputed premises at the rate of Rs. 300 per month, and that the petitioner was Public Sector Corporation, as such, according to provision contained in proviso 1 to Sub-section (8) of Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, monthly rent was liable to be enhanced to the 1/12 of 10% of the present market value of the disputed premises. A copy of the said application dated 20. 12. 1985, has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner contested the said application and filed objection dated 23. 4. 1986, copy whereof has been filed an Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It further appears that the said application dated 20. 12. 1985, filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed by the respondent No. 2 (Rent control and Eviction Officer/pargana Adhikari, Deoria) by the order dated 21. 1. 1993 and the rent was enhanced from Rs. 300 per month to Rs. 13,750 per month.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act. The said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 20. 5. 1996.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31872 of 1996 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge of this court on 18. 3. 1999.

( 6 ) THEREAFTER, it appears that the petitioner filed special leave petition being S. L. P. (C) No. 11758 of 1999 before the Honble Supreme Court. By the judgment and order dated 8. 11. 2000, their lordships of the Supreme Court allowed the said appeal, and set aside the order passed by the rent Control and Eviction Officer as affirmed by the appellate authority and the High Court and remitted the matter to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for fresh consideration from the stage when the matter was set down on 24. 11. 1992 and after notice to the parties proceed to dispose of the matter.

( 7 ) THEREAFTER, it appears that the petitioner filed an amendment application dated 5. 3. 2002, before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, inter alia, praying for amending the written statement/objection filed on behalf of the petitioner by adding Paragraphs 15a and 15b copy of the said amendment application dated 5. 3. 2002, has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

( 8 ) THE respondent No. 3 filed objection dated 2. 4. 2002 to the said amendment application ; copy of the objection dated 2. 4. 2002, has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. By the order dated 1,5. 2002, Up Zila Adhikari/rent Control and Eviction Officer, Deoria, dismissed the said amendment application filed on behalf of the petitioner. It was, inter alia, held that the amendments sought to be made did not give any detail as to from what date and upto what date, the petitioner continued to remain tenant of the disputed premises and as what date, the petitioner vacat