DEVI GULAM Vs. MAYA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 14th October, 2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which the application filed by him for incorporating amendments in the written statement has been rejected. The landlord had filed release application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 with the allegation that she and her daughter had training of running boutique business and so they desire to do boutique business and to open a showroom with the husband of the petitioner who is not doing any job. The accommodation under the tenancy of the opposite party was, therefore, needed for setting up this business. In this connection, paras 1 and 2 and boundaries of the tenanted accommodation mentioned in the application filed by landlord are quoted below:

(2.) A written statement was filed by the tenant with the following averments:

(3.) Subsequently, an amendment application was moved by the tenant with the following averments: