Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1093 (ALL)

Raj Kumar Grover v. District Judge Haridwar

2000-08-24

R.H.ZAIDI

body2000
Judgment R.H. Zaidi, J. (1) Head learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record. (2) In the case, counter and rejoinder-affidavit have already been filed. The case is ripe for hearing, therefore, as desired by learned Counsel for the parties, I have heard this petition and the same is being disposed of finally by means of this judgment. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.4.1997 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement/objection filed in the proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the act, was rejected by the District Judge, Haridwar at the appellate stage. (3) It appears that the Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for release of the shop in dispute on the ground that he wanted the shop for settling his son in business; that his need was bona fide and genuine and the plea of comparative hardship was also taken. Petitioner filed written statement admitting that the Respondent No. 2 was the landlord of the building in question but denied the rest of the allegations made in the application. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority, after going through the material on the record, recorded findings on the questions of need and comparative hardship in favour of Respondent No. 2 and allowed the application by its judgment and order dated 26.3.1996. Challenging the validity of the said order, petitioner filed an appeal before the Court below. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement/objection. The application filed by the petitioner was objected to and opposed by Respondent No. 2. The Appellate Authority, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the application filed by the petitioner was not a bona fide application, the same was filed just to delay the disposal of appeal and dismissed the same by its judgment and order dated 21.4.1997, hence the present petition. The Appellate Authority, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the application filed by the petitioner was not a bona fide application, the same was filed just to delay the disposal of appeal and dismissed the same by its judgment and order dated 21.4.1997, hence the present petition. (4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Appellate Authority has acted illegally in dismissing the amendment application. According to him, the amendment sought by the petitioner was necessary for resolving the controversy involved in the case, the same, therefore, should have been allowed. On the other hand, Mr. V.K.S. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate, vehemently urged that the application filed by the petitioner was wholly mala fide, the same was filed with a view to delay the disposal of the case. It was contended that the petitioner clearly and unequivocally admitted before the Prescribed Authority that the Respondent No. 2 was the landlord of the building in question and that petitioner has been paying the rent of the same to him there fore, there was no justification for him at the appellate stage to contend that some other persons were also the co-landlords. It was also urged that the amendment sought by the petitioner in the written statement/objection was not necessary for resolving the controversy involved in the case. The petitioner wanted to resile from the admission which was made by him before the Prescribed Authority. I have considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner. (5) The controversy involved in the case is as to whether the need of the Respondent No. 2 for shop in dispute was bona fide and genuine. For resolving the said controversy, it is not necessary to go into the question of ownership. Further, petitioner, before the Prescribed Authority, did not dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, it was not open to him at the appellate stage to plead that Respondent No. 2 was not the sole owner of the property in dispute. The application was apparently filed with a view to delay the disposal of the appeal as the petitioner has already lost the case before the Prescribed Authority. The Appellate Authority did not commit any error of law and jurisdiction in dismissing the application. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The application was apparently filed with a view to delay the disposal of the appeal as the petitioner has already lost the case before the Prescribed Authority. The Appellate Authority did not commit any error of law and jurisdiction in dismissing the application. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. (6) It is however observed that the appeal which is pending before the Appellate Authority for long, shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is communicated to the said authority. The writ petition fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs. The interim order, if any, is discharged. Petition dismissed.