Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3445 (ALL)

Suresh Chandra v. Dinesh Kumar

2010-11-09

RAKESH TIWARI

body2010
JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and orders dated 17.9.2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar in P.A. Case No. 24 of 2002: Dinesh Kumar and another vs. Suresh Chand and others, appended as Annexure-1 to this writ petition. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord filed release application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority, Muzaffarnagar on the ground that the shop is required to set up the sons of applicant no. 2 i.e. Amit Goyal and Sumit Goyal as they are interested in running their Computer Education Centre. The petitioner contested the case by filing written statement denying the genuine need set up by respondent-landlord in view of the fact that according to the business proposed to be done by the sons they are highly qualified and also in view of the fact that they are not residing at Muzaffarnagar for the last several years. Subsequently, respondent-landlord filed amendment application for adding paragraphs 4A, 5A, 10A, 10B and 10C which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority. On refusal by the respondent-landlord to furnish the documents demanded by the petitioner, the petitioners filed an application under Order 11 C.P.C. Objection to the said application was filed by the respondent-landlord on the ground that interrogatories cannot be asked. Thereafter, respondent-landlord filed another amendment application (paper no. 102-C) stating therein that as his two sons namely Amit Goyal and Ankit have now been shifted in Ghaziabad, he himself wanted to start business in the shop in question along with Sumit Goyal. The petitioners again filed objection to the amendment application (paper no. 102-C) stating therein that the same is not maintainable as the application moved by the petitioners for interrogatories have not been decided for the last several months and the same should be disposed of first. After adducing the evidence by the parties, the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 17.9.2010 allowed the amendment application. 4.Aggrieved by the said order dated 17.9.2010, the petitioner has filed present writ petition. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Prescribed Authority has allowed the amendment application of the respondent-landlord without application of mind. After adducing the evidence by the parties, the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 17.9.2010 allowed the amendment application. 4.Aggrieved by the said order dated 17.9.2010, the petitioner has filed present writ petition. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Prescribed Authority has allowed the amendment application of the respondent-landlord without application of mind. He has also submitted that the need set up by respondent-landlord is not genuine as earlier the need was set up by filing release application for engagement of his sons, but now by amendment (paper no. 102-C) he wants to set up his own need. The contention raised by the petitioners is not acceptable as respondent-landlord is also member of joint family who can also claim his need and his need for the shop along with other son cannot be overlooked. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of record, it is apparent that the petitioners have come before this Court against the order allowing amendment application of the respondent-landlord by which the court below has held that for proper adjudication of the case, amendment application moved by the respondent-landlord is to be decided. According to the court below the amendment application of the respondent-landlord does not change the nature of proceedings The petitioners have been heard in detail by the court below before the amendment application has been allowed by the order impugned. 7. In view of the above, I am also of the view that the court below has rightly allowed the amendment application of the respondent-landlord and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned passed by the court below. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.