Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 653 (ALL)

Mohammad Ali v. Vinay Kumar and another

2012-03-19

SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2012
Shashi Kant Gupta, J.;- 1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 6.2.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Meerut in Rent Appeal No. 32 of 2010 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for amendment in the written statement has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case as set out in the writ petition are as follows; 3. The petitioner is a tenant in the disputed shop at Handia, Mohalla Lalkurti, Meerut Cantonment, District Meerut which was purchased by the Respondents on 8.4.2003. After the issuance of notice to the petitioner, an application under Section 21 (1)(a) of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "Act") was filed for release of the disputed premises. Written statement was filed by the petitioner wherein the relationship of landlord-tenant was admitted between the parties. It was not denied by the petitioner that the premises in dispute comes within the ambit of the Act. 4. The Prescribed Authority by judgment and order dated 20.2.2010 allowed the release application of the respondents. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which was registered as Rent Appeal No. 32 of 2010. 5. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application by means of which it sought a direction to the landlord-respondents to produce a copy of the sale deed. The court below while finding no justification for summoning the sale deed dismissed the application on merit on 30.11.2010 and further observed that the sale deed shall be summoned during the course of arguments if it appears that the same is necessary for meeting the ends of justice. Subsequently, another Application 18-Ga was filed by the petitioner with a prayer that a copy of the sale deed may be taken on record. The said application too was dismissed on merit on 6.4.2011 by the court below. Since the aforesaid orders were not challenged by the petitioner, they attained finality. 6. Subsequently, another Application 18-Ga was filed by the petitioner with a prayer that a copy of the sale deed may be taken on record. The said application too was dismissed on merit on 6.4.2011 by the court below. Since the aforesaid orders were not challenged by the petitioner, they attained finality. 6. Thereafter, yet another application for amendment in the written statement was filed by the petitioner stating that a substantial part of the disputed property purchased by the respondent-landlord in the year 2003 was demolished by the respondents, as a result of which the premises in question ceased to be governed by the Act No. 13 of 1972 and hence the release application filed under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act was not maintainable. Objection was filed against the said amendment application by the landlord-respondents. By order dated 6.2.2012 the appellate court dismissed the said amendment application. Hence, the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court below has erred in passing the impugned order. The order is based on a complete misreading of the case and a misconception of the legal position relevant to the matter and that the court below has not considered the material on record in the right perspective. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the amendment application 25-Ka goes to the root of the matter and, as such, it ought to have been allowed. It was further submitted that the disputed premises was newly constructed in the year 2004 and assessed in the year 2005, as such, the premises in question was not covered by the Act. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 9. The premises in dispute was purchased by the respondents-landlords in the year 2003, and thereafter a notice was issued by the respondents-landlords which was duly replied to by the petitioner. It is also noteworthy that the petitioner in his written statement has admitted the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and has not disputed the applicability of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 to the disputed premises. 10. From the perusal of the amendment application, it is evident that nowhere it was stated that the shop in dispute was a new construction. 10. From the perusal of the amendment application, it is evident that nowhere it was stated that the shop in dispute was a new construction. Another aspect of the matter which cannot be ignored is that according to the petitioner himself he was continuously occupying the premises for the last 40-50 years which could be impossible since the petitioner would have had vacated the disputed shop for the purpose of reconstruction. Moreover, when a pointed query was made by the Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he denied having vacated the shop during the period of the alleged new construction in the year 2005. 11. The petitioner has simply filed show cause notice issued by the cantonment board with regard to the construction of three rooms, Verandah, Kitchen, latrine and bathroom in the ground floor of the disputed premises but even the said show cause notice does not mention anything about the shop in question. There is nothing on record to show that the shop was newly constructed or municipal taxes on the disputed building were ever enhanced after the alleged construction. 12. The release application was filed in the year 2007 but the petitioner neither made any averment in his written statement nor brought any evidence on record before the prescribed authority to the effect that building in question was wholly or substantially demolished and after the substantial addition the existing building became only a minor part as a consequence thereof the premises in dispute was taken away from the purview of the Act. It was only when the prescribed authority released the shop in question in favour of the landlord, for the first time during the pendency of appeal the petitioner raised the question with regard to the applicability of the Act by way of an amendment application, more particularly after the rejection of the two applications, one for the production of a copy of the sale deed and the other for taking the sale deed on record by the appellate court. 13. It appears that the present application has been filed by the petitioner simply to delay the proceedings of the case during the pendency of the appeal. 14. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned order. 13. It appears that the present application has been filed by the petitioner simply to delay the proceedings of the case during the pendency of the appeal. 14. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned order. Reasons mentioned by the court below while dismissing the application of the petitioner to amend the written statement are good enough to satisfy the impugned order and no fault can be found with the approach adopted by the court below. 15. In view of what has been discussed herein above, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. 16.In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed