Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Mohd Arif Khan learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Nrapendra Misra holding brief of Sri Manish Kumar learned counsel for opposite party No. 1, Sri N.K. Pandey and Sri Anand Kumar Mishra, Advocates for respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners/ tenant has challenged the order dated 10.1.2011 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) passed by opposite party No. 1/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Lucknow by which petitioners’ application for amendment in the written statement at the appellate stage has been rejected.

3. Controversy relates to a shop situated at house No. 119, Mill Road, Mawaiya, Lucknow, initially let out by Sri Kungoo Mall,the father of the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-.

4. On 2.8.1999, landlord/O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 moved an application for release of the shop in question under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 registered as PA Case No. 100 of 1999, a written statement filed on 13.8.2001 by tenants/petitioners, thereafter application and application under Section 34(c) of the Act has been moved by the tenants on 8.1.2006 registered as paper No. 66 for issue commission.

5. On 29.1.2008, the landlrods, filed the objection to the abovesaid application alongwith an affidavit, in paragraph No. 6 of the said affidavit it is inter alia mentioned as under :

“That the contents of the para No. 4 is absolutely incorrect, baseless and wrong. No shop has been released in favour of the deponent, the story narrated therein concocted and false story. It is further submitted that the case, which was filed in the Court of A.D.M. (Civil Supply) Lucknow, under Section 16(1) (b) of the Act 13 of 1972 was infructuous due to the death of Aditya Narain Misha as well as due to the death of Ghunnu Mul hence there was no vacancy at all, the deponent moved an application for withdrawn of the case before A.D.M. (Civil Supply) Lucknow on 22.12.2007 that his case may be withdrawn as not pressed and which was allowed.”

6. Further, a written argument has also been filed on 17.8.2010 on behalf of the petitioners/tenants through their counsel Sri Raj Kumar Yadav, Advocate and in paragraph No. 14 it is stated as under :

“That it is very relevant to consider that the present application is pending since 1999 continuously for release of the shop No. 2 which was in the tenancy of Late Kungoo Mal since 1960 they why the other release application which was pending before the additional District Magistrate (Civil Supply), Lucknow under Section 16(1)(b) of Act XII of 1972 has been compromised on 29.1.2008 and it is clearly mentioned in Annexure No. 1 and Annexure No. 2 which are attached, that the said case was pending since 1981 and after a lapse of 27 years applicants not pressed the said application and admitted sub tenant Sri Laxmi Chand as their tenant. If applicant had any need for any shop why they entered into a compromise with Sri Laxmi Chand and not pressed their release application in which final orders were going to pass. Any ruling is not applicable in the present case and present release application has no merit.”

7. After considering the pleadings and material evidence on record, the prescribed authority by an order dated 31.8.2010 (Annexure 6) allowed the release application, challenged by the petitioners/tenants by filing an appeal (RA No. 55 of 2010), pending before Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Lucknow.

8. On 10.1.2011, petitioners/tenants moved an application under Section 34(g) and Rule 22(d) of U.P. Act, 13 of 1972 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the written statement prayed that after paragraph No. 29, para 29(A) be allowed to be incorporated, the same is reproduced hereinbelow :

“29A. That during pendency of the case under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 respondents entered into a compromise with the sub tenant Sri Laxmi Chand on 22.12.2007 and withdraw t