Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 929 (ALL)

Ram Narain v. District Judge, Unnao and others

2011-04-08

ANIL KUMAR

body2011
Anil Kumar, J.;- 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. 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 allowed in the garb of provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, further amendment as sought by the petitioner at appellate stage if allowed will prejudice the case of landlord/respondent because it is well settled proposition of law that amendment in written statement can be allowed only it is eclipsed or wipe out the relief claimed by the landlord and the said position does not exists in the present case so amendment application moved by the petitioner/tenant with malafide intention in order to linger on the proceedings in question rightly rejected by appellate court hence the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that before dealing the controversy involved in the present case, it would be proper to have a glance to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC quoted as under - "The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial" 11. From a bare perusal of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that the court is conferred with power, at any stage of the proceedings, to allow alteration and amendments of the pleadings if it is of the view that such amendments may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 12. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey & Anr. Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors. 2007 AIR SCW 513, while dealing with the matter regarding amendment of written statement in paragraph No. 3 has held as under:- "The respondents/plaintiffs filed application for amendment of the plaint of Special Civil Application No. 156 of 2002 and also produced further documents vide list Ex. 25. The trial Court granted amendment of the plaint and further dismissed the application of the appellants objecting the jurisdiction of the Court. The appellants preferred appeal to the High Court challenging the above order. The High Court admitted the appeal and finally dismissed the application for stay and directed the appeal to be placed for final hearing. On 31.01.2003, the new Acharya was appointed by the Committee constituted pursuant to the Resolution dated 15.05.2002. The appellants preferred special leave petition No. 3351 of 2003 before this Court challenging the order of the High Court. The High Court admitted the appeal and finally dismissed the application for stay and directed the appeal to be placed for final hearing. On 31.01.2003, the new Acharya was appointed by the Committee constituted pursuant to the Resolution dated 15.05.2002. The appellants preferred special leave petition No. 3351 of 2003 before this Court challenging the order of the High Court. This Court modified the order of the High Court and requested Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court to ensure that hearing and disposal of the appeal takes place as expeditiously as possible as according to this Court an important question was required to be decided in the matter. The High Court dismissed the appeal from Order No. 421 of 2002. SLP No. 1538 (Civil Appeal No. 3380) was preferred by the appellant No.1 before this Court against the above referred judgment of the High Court. The said appeal was decided and the matter was remanded back to the High Court, inter alia, observed that: "the dispute centers around the question as to whether the removal of Ajendra Prasad Narejdra Prasad Pandey from the post of Acharya on the basis of a purported Resolution dated 11.5.2000 passed by a body calling itself as Satsang Mahasabha was valid. Intimately linked to this issue is the legality of the action taken to istall Rakeshprasadji Mahendraprasadji "##.." it is to be noted that legality of the appointment of Rakeshprasadji as Acharya was questioned. So, as noted above, the basis revolves around the question of legality of the decision taken to remove Ajendraprasadji and legality of appointment of Rakeshprasadji"##.."it is needless to note that while deciding the issue of injunction, the Courts have to consider three cumulative factors, viz. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Definite findings are to be given on these aspects, on a prima facie basis." 13. In the case of B.K.N. Pillai Vs. P. Pillai and another, AIR 2000 SC 614 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under:- "The principles applicable to the amendments of the plaint are equally applicable to the amendments of the written statements. The courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written statement as question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event. The courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written statement as question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event. The defendant has a right to take alternative plea in defence which, however, is subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment other side should not be subjected to injustice and that any admission made in favour of the plaintiff is not withdrawn. All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit provided the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original is was raised or defence taken, Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings. Proposed amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which can not be compensated by costs. No amendment should be allowed which amounts to or relates in defeating a legal right accruing to the opposite party on account of lapse of time. The delay in filing the petition for amendment of the pleadings should be properly compensated by costs and error or mistake which, if not fraudulent, should not be made a ground for rejecting the application for amendment of plaint or written statement." 14. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Andhra Bank Vs. ABN Amro Bank N.V. & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 2511 , while dealing with the matters relating to the amendment in written statement has held that it is a well settled law that delay is no a ground for refusal of prayer of amendment in a written statement and further held that the amendment in a written statement should be considered liberally and the additional ground taken by a defendant to be incorporated in a written statement shall be allowed. 15. In the case of Sampath Kumar VS. Ayyakannu and another, 2002(20) 1186 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the merit of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment. 15. In the case of Sampath Kumar VS. Ayyakannu and another, 2002(20) 1186 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the merit of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment. However, the defendant is right to submitting that if he has already perfected his title by way of adverse possession then the right to accrued should not be allowed to be defeated by permitting an amendment and seeking a new relief which would relate back to the date of the suit and thereby depriving the defendant of the advantage accrued to him by lapse of time. 16. It has been further held in the case of Sampath Kumar (Supra) in para 12 that :- "On the averments made in the application, the same ought to have been allowed. If the facts alleged by plaintiffs are not correct it is open for the defendant to take such plea in the written statement and if the plaintiff fails in substantiating the factual accouterments and/or the defendant succeeds in substantiating the plea which he would obviously be permitted to raise in his pleading by way of consequential amendment then the suit shall be liable to be dismissed." 17. In view of the abovesaid facts, the principle which emerged out that a prayer for amendment of the plaint and a prayer for amendment of the written statement stand on different footings. The general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. Therefore, addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would not be objectionable while adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable. 18. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. Therefore, addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would not be objectionable while adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable. 18. Such being the settled law, in the case of amendment of a written statement, the courts are more liberal in allowing an amendment than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter case but while doing so, it should be kept in mind that no serious injustice or irreparable loss is cost to the other side on the ground that the prayer of amendment is not bona fide one. 19. Needless to mention herein that in the case of Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and sons and others (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 84 Hon'ble the Supreme Court while dealing with applications for amendment has held as under:- " On critically analysing both the English and Indian Cases, some basis principles emerges which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2)whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money. (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation. (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. 20. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive. 21. The decision on an application made under Order 6 Rule 17 is a very serious judicial exercise and the said exercise should never be undertaken in a casual manner. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive. 21. The decision on an application made under Order 6 Rule 17 is a very serious judicial exercise and the said exercise should never be undertaken in a casual manner. We can conclude our discussion by observing that while deciding applications for amendments the courts must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide, worthless and/or dishonest amendments." 22. In view of the above facts in nut shell while dealing with the matter in regard to allowing amendment application either in plaint or in written statement at any stage, the two conditions must be satisfied:- "(A) Whether amendment is necessary to decide real controversy The first condition which must be satisfied before the amendment can be allowed by the court is whether such amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy. If that condition is not satisfied, the amendment cannot be allowed. This is the basic test which should govern the courts' discretion in grant or refusal of the amendment." (B) No prejudice or injustice to other party The other important conditions which should govern the discretion of the court is the potentiality or prejudice or injustice which is likely to be caused to the other side. Ordinarily, if the other side is compensated by costs then there is no injustice but in practice hardly any court grants actual costs to the opposite side. The Courts have very wipe discretion in the matter of amendment of pleadings but court's power must be exercised judiciously and with great care. Now reverting to the facts of the present case while dismissing amendment application the finding which has been recorded by appellate court, the relevant portion of the same quoted as under:- "Upon hearing parties learned counsel and on perusal of record I find that in this appeal against order allowing release application of landlords under Section 21 of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972, the facts are to be brought by way of amendment already find place in written statement. If certain facts are not narrated elaborately, there appears no justification for not seeking amendment in court below, before prescribed authority where the case remained pending for thirteen years. 13 of 1972, the facts are to be brought by way of amendment already find place in written statement. If certain facts are not narrated elaborately, there appears no justification for not seeking amendment in court below, before prescribed authority where the case remained pending for thirteen years. It is not disputed that release application was filed on 12.5.1997 and rent was deposited by appellant in favour of respondent vide Misc. Case no. 70 of 1997 under Section 13 (1) of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 while the alleged sale deed and agreement for sale in favour of brother and sons of tenant/appellant have been obtained subsequently in the month of October, 1997 and February 1999 respectively. 23. In view of above case law considering the material on record I find that facts were available to the appellant in court below where case remained pending for a long period of 13 years and the appellant has failed to explain as to why, if needed, the amendment was not sought before prescribed authority and is necessary at appellate stage. Otherwise also under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the amendment may only be permitted if the same is necessary for the purpose of determining real questions in controversy between the parties. In this case of release under Section 21 of U.P. Act no. XII of 1972 the facts relating to the execution of sale deed and agreement for sale in favour of brother and sons of appellant were well within the knowledge of appellant during pendency of petition under Section 21 of U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972 are not at all necessary for determining real questions in controversy between the parties. 24. As far as the question of injustice to be caused to the other party in allowing application is concerned, merely because the amendment, if allowed, is not likely to cause injustice to the other party, the same may not be allowed on one's sweet will unless it is necessary for determining real questions in controversy between the parties. Otherwise also it will not be correct to say that the amendment sought will not cause injustice to the respondents. In view of the principles laid down for dealing with amendment of pleadings by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of M/S Revazeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Otherwise also it will not be correct to say that the amendment sought will not cause injustice to the respondents. In view of the principles laid down for dealing with amendment of pleadings by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of M/S Revazeetu Builders and Developers Vs. M/S Narain Swami, 2009 ALR 654, since the appellant has failed to show that amendment is imperative for proper for effective adjudication, or is bonafide, there is no sufficient ground for allowing the amendment." 25. In the case of Hukum Chand Vs. Om Chand and others (2001) 10 Supreme Court Cases 715 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under:- " The Rule is an enabling one and permissive in nature. A full Bench of the Patna High Court has held in Mahanth Sukhdeo Das Vs. Kashi Prasad Tiwari AIR 1958 Pat, 630 that in spite of a devolution of interest having taken place during the pendency of the litigation, the same can continue. It is for the assignee to appear in the suit at any stage and defend himself with the leave of the court but he cannot seek to be brought on record as of right. The discretion vests in the Court. Though ordinarily the leave will not be refused, nevertheless the court would exercise its discretion in granting the leave on the facts and circumstances of a given case. The tenant having suffered a decree from the High Court, it, was for him to make an appropriate application and seek leave of the court for prosecuting appeal against the person in whom the right and title in the suit property has come to vest. It was also open to such transferee pendente lite to seek leave of the court for coming on record. The Full Bench has opined the Sukhdevo Das Case that such assignment or devolution of right during the pendency of the litigation did not arrest the progress of the litigation. We agree with the view taken by the Full Bench. In our opinion, the only exception is when the transfer of property forming the subject matter of the suit, pendente lite, results in wiping out the cause of action itself or deprives the transferee of the right to decree, such as where the cause of action was personal to the original plaintiff. In our opinion, the only exception is when the transfer of property forming the subject matter of the suit, pendente lite, results in wiping out the cause of action itself or deprives the transferee of the right to decree, such as where the cause of action was personal to the original plaintiff. Otherwise, the only result is that such transferee steps into the shoes of his predecessor-in-interest and remains bound by the result of the suit and would not, at a later stage, be permitted to raise the plea that he was not bound by the result of the litigation because he was not brought on record of the suit and impleaded as a party. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant also fails." 26. In the case of Ram Nibas Gagar ( dead) by LRS. Vs. Debojyoti Das and others (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases,472 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- " The civil revision remained pending in the High Court form the year 1993to 22.7.1998. Special Leave Petition before this Court was filed on 8.9.1998 accompanied by an application seeking to invite the attention of this Court to additional facts by way of subsequent events. The relevant part of the application is extracted and reproduced hereunder:- " That during the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent landlords have inducted many new tenants in the rooms adjacent to the suit premises. Some tenants were inducted during the pendency of the first appeal for which an application was filed by the petitioner. However, the appellate court failed to take note of the additional facts, while disposing of the appeal. Even subsequent to disposal of the appeal by the appellate court, new tenants have been inducted by the respondent landlords. A sketch map of the suit premises alongwith the names of the tenant inducted and the period of tenancy is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-2." 27. In the case of Gaya Prasad Vs. Praddep Srivastava (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 604, the Apex Court has held as under:- " We have no doubt that the crucial date for deciding as to the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord is the date of his application for eviction. The antecedent days may perhaps have utility for him to reach the said crucial date of consideration. The antecedent days may perhaps have utility for him to reach the said crucial date of consideration. If every subsequent development during the post-petition period is to be taken into account for judging the bona fides of the requirement pleaded by the landlord there would perhaps be no end so long as the unfortunate situation in our legislative slow-process system subsists." 28. In view of the above said position the court should liberal while allowing amendment in written statements but the subsequent events should be of a such magnitude that if it is taken into consideration it would completely eclipsed the relief sought by petitioner and would wipe out cause of action thus the same is necessary to decide the controversy involved in the matter. 29. Accordingly, I am of opinion that amendment which sought by the petitioner/tenant in written statement is not necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties and has neither any bearing in the suit between the parties, rightly rejected by appellate court. 30. Next arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that other co-owner of the property in question are not impleaded as party so the release application moved by one co-owner which is not a party, hence amendment ought to be allowed. In this regard he placed reliance of a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Siya Ram Vs. District Judge( Incharge) Barabanki and others decided on 8.4.2011 and in the case of Kanta Goel Vs. B.P. Pathak and others ( 1977) 2 SCC 814. 31. In order to decide the said arguments in the instant case whether an application for release moved by one of the co-owner of the property without impleading other co-owner of the said property is maintainable or not, it will appropriate to see the provisions as provided under Rule 15(2) of the Rules, 1972 quoted hereunder:- " 15. Application for release of building under occupation of tenant:- [Section 21(1)] (1).......................................................... (2) The application or its reply shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribed under Rules 14 and 15 of Order VI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. If there are more than one landlords, the application shall be signed by all the co-landlords. (3)..............................................................." 32. A full Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Dass and another Vs. If there are more than one landlords, the application shall be signed by all the co-landlords. (3)..............................................................." 32. A full Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Dass and another Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others, 1987 (1) Allahabad Rent Cases,281 after considering the Rule 15(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 has held as under:- " So far as the applicability of this Rule to the present case is concerned, there is not problem. Murlidhar Sah who has brought the action for eviction of the premises in question is undoubtedly the landlord. He was signed the application. He alone is competent to sign the application. However, we may point out that the requirement of Rule 15(2) that an application for release of premises owned by co-owners should be signed by all co-owners would be invalid. One co-owner is competent to maintain an action for eviction of the tenant of the entire premises, since he can be considered as a landlord within the meaning of Section 3 (j) of the Act. One co-owner alone would be competent to sign such an application." 33. Moreover prior to said full Bench, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sriram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath and others, 1977 Allahabad Rent Cases 83 has held as under :- " It is therefore, clear that the rule that a co-owner may maintain an action to eject a trespasser without joining other co-owners in such action can have no application where a co-owners in such actin can have no application where a co-owners seek to evict a tenant who is in possession of the property after determination of the lease. " 34. Thereafter in the case of Laxmi Devi Vs. Iind Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others, 1988(1) Allahabad Rent Cases, 463 this Court has held as under:- " In a Full Bench case of Gopal Dass and others Vs. Ist Addl. " 34. Thereafter in the case of Laxmi Devi Vs. Iind Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others, 1988(1) Allahabad Rent Cases, 463 this Court has held as under:- " In a Full Bench case of Gopal Dass and others Vs. Ist Addl. District Judge, Varanasi, reported in 1987(1) ARC 281, it was held : " In view of these decisions, there can, therefore, be little doubt as to the maintainability of the action of eviction brought by one co- owners without impleaidng the other co-owner." it was also observed that - " However, we may point out that the requirement of Rule 15(2) that an application for release of premises owned by co-owners should be signed by all co-owners would be invalid. One co-owner is competent to maintain an action for eviction of the tenant of the entire premises, since he can be considered as a landlord within the meaning of Section 3(j) of the Act. One co-owner alone would be competent to sign such an application." 35. In Ram Paricha Vs. Jagannath and others, reported in AIR 1976 SC 2335 it was observed at 2339 as follows: "Jurisprudentially it is not correct to say that a co-owner of property is not its owner, he owns every part of the composite property alone with others and it cannot be said that he is only a partowner or a fractional owner of the property. The position will change only when partition takes place. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the submission that the plaintiff who is admittedly the landlord co-owner of that premises is not the owner of the premises within the meaning of Section 13(1) as long as he is a co-owner of the property being at same time the acknowledged landlord of the defendants." 36. In Rang Nath V. State of U.P. and others, reported in 1984 ALJ 455: 1984(1) ARC 642 it was held that a suit for eviction filed under Section 21 of the Act by one of the co-owner -landlord along is maintainable. The same view has also been taken in the case of Smt. Vatsala Nayar Vs.Vandana Tandon and others reported in 1988 (1) ARC 57. Thus, in view of the decision above, it is amply clear that the application filed by the petitioner Smt. Laxmi Devi for the release of the accommodation under Section 21 (1) (a) is clearly maintainability." 37. The same view has also been taken in the case of Smt. Vatsala Nayar Vs.Vandana Tandon and others reported in 1988 (1) ARC 57. Thus, in view of the decision above, it is amply clear that the application filed by the petitioner Smt. Laxmi Devi for the release of the accommodation under Section 21 (1) (a) is clearly maintainability." 37. Same view again reiterated by this Court in the cases of Ram Gopal Sharma Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Meerut and others, 1993 (11) LCD 372 and Vijay Bhatt Vs. Shri Julian Abraham and another, 2004 (3) ARC 519. 38. Recently this Court in the case of Sarika Kedia Vs. Additional District Judge, Deoria & others,2010(1) JCLR 307 ( All) after placing reliance of the Full Bench Judgment of Gopal Dass ( Supra) held as under:- " The primary question regrading release application by one of the co-landlords is concerned in a proceeding under Section 21 of the Act, is competent enough to institute the release application all alone impleading other-co-landlords as proforma opposite parties as it is the instant case. One perusal of the Full Bench decision, it is clear that a release application filed by one of the co-owners is maintainable even if the other co-owners are not impleaded. Secondly requirement of Rule 15(2) of U.P. Urban ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction ) Act,1972 was held to be invalid." 39. Moreover, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sriram Pasricha (Supra) after taking into consideration the case of Kanta Goel ( Supra) has held that release application moved by landlord without impleading the others, are maintainable as per the provisions under Rule 15(2) of the Rules 1972. Further, judgment given by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Dass and another ( Supra) still holds the field good by which it has been held that the application for release made by one of co-owner in respect to premises, is maintainable without impleading other co-owner of the landlord of premises, so the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner has got no force and is accordingly rejected. 40. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 30.10.2010 passed by District Judge, Unnao in Rent Appeal No. 4 of 2010 ( Ram Narain Vs. 40. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 30.10.2010 passed by District Judge, Unnao in Rent Appeal No. 4 of 2010 ( Ram Narain Vs. Anwar Kamal and others) by which the petitioner's application for amendment is rejected as such writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. 41. No order as to costs.