The main legal point established is that an amendment should be allowed only if it is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Additionally, the court clarified that the application for release made by one co-owner in respect to premises is maintainable without impleading other co-owners of the landlord of premises.

Heard Sri Ravi Nath Tilhari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Q.Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord.

2. Controversy involved in the present case relates to a shop in house having municipal number 225 situated at Mohalla Hakim Tola, City, Pargana, Tehsil and District Unnao in respect of which respondents/landlord on 12.9.1997 moved an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Building ( Regulation of Letting and Eviction ) Act,1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) for release.

3. Accordingly P.A. Case no. 12 of 1997 registered before Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Unnao in which tenant/petitioner filed written statement on 7.8.2009 ( Annexure no.3). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material on record, the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge ( Senior Division ) Unnao allowed P.A. Case no. 12 of 1997 vide order dated 1.5.2010( Annexure no.4 ).

4. Aggrieved by the same, tenant filed an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972 registered as Rent Appeal NO. 4 of 2010( Ram Narain Vs. Anwar Kamal and others ). In the said appeal, tenant/petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in written statement alleging therein that at the time of preparation of appeal it is found necessary to explain and elaborate the facts as mentioned in written statement already filed by him by adding 12A,13A, 27 and 28 registered as Application no. 29A to which landlords field their objection registered as 34 C. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.10.2010 (Annexure no.1) rejected the petitioner's application for amendment hence the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Sri R.N. Tilhari, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 30.10.2010 submits that order passed by court below thereby rejecting the petitioner's application for amendment in written statement is wholly illegal and arbitrary in nature because by way of amendment tenant/petitioner wants to add those facts which are already on record and amendment which sought only to add some facts necessary to explain and elaborate the facts in order to bring legal plea on record as such it ought to be allowed keeping in mind that amendment in written statement should be liberally considered.

6. The second limb of argument of Sri R.N. Tilhari is to the effect that respondents/landlord are not only co-owner/landlord of the shop in question as such release application moved by them without impleading the other co-owners/landlords is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of his arguments, he relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath (1976) 4 SCC 184 and Kanta Goel Vs. B.P. Pathak and others (1977) 2 SCC 814.

7. On the basis of the same, it is submitted by him that application moved by one co-owner/landlord is not maintainable so there is no justification or reasons on the part of the court below to reject amendment application as such the present writ petition may be allowed and order passed by appellate court thereby rejecting application for amendment may be set aside.

8. Sri B.Q. Siddiqui, learned counsel for respondents/landlords submits that amendment under Order 6 Rule 11 C.P. moved by tenant at appellate stage in order to linger on the proceedings in respect to release application which has been filed by the landlord in the year 1997 i.e. about 13 years back rightly rejected by court below.

9. He further submits the arguments made by learned counsel for petitioner that one co-landlord cannot move an application for release, is incorrect and wrong rather contrary to law.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that as a matter of fact the plea which petitioner wants to be incorporated by way of amendment as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner only to elaborate the said plea by way of amendment cannot be all