Mahendra Dayal, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 30.10.2017, passed by Special Judge (Ayurved Scam)/ Additional District Judge, Lucknow in Rent Appeal No. 4 of 2017, whereby the learned appellate court has rejected the application for amendment moved by the petitioner as well as the application filed by him for local inspection.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the case was pending before the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner brought to the knowledge of his counsel, the entire facts but he could not incorporate the important facts in the written statement. The learned counsel has referred to the amendment application filed by him before the learned appellate court to show that the amendments sought by the petitioner before the appellate court, do not change the nature of the defence and the grounds sought to be added involve mixed question of law and fact. It has also been submitted that the learned court below has rejected the application for amendment only on th