A.K. Yog, J.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged only one short point and stated that there is no other point.

2. IN order to challenge the order of the Court below allowing amendment application in release proceedings pending at appellate stage under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the Act'), the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that family settlement was (sic) to manufacture can a ground of bona fide need by putting the accommodation in question in the lot of such co-sharer who could establish his bona fide need and comparative hardship at a stage when the existing owner landlord had realised that he could not establish his case. Whether family settlement is genuine and bona fide has to be adjudicated by concerned Court while deciding the appeal after parties have led evidence and the Appellate Court adjudicates upon the said issue.

The said contention of the petitioner is also regarding the merit of the pleadings sought to be incorporated by amendment.

3. IT is too late to challenge amendment by showing falsity in the pleadings sought to be incorporat