Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 456 (UTT)

Hari Datt Pathak v. Sanjeeda Begum

2016-08-09

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following relief, among others: “Issue writ, order in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 01.7.2016 passed in R.C.C. no. 21 of 2012 Sanjeeda Begum vs. H.D. Pathak.” 2. Application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lettings, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (13 of 1972) was filed by the landlord-respondent on the ground of personal and bona fide need. 3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that landlord’s evidence was closed. The tenant, according to the learned counsel has yet to give his evidence. In the meanwhile, on 06.6.2016, the landlord-respondent moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment in the application. Respondent wanted to introduce ‘Repair and Reconstruction of the Building’ as new grounds for release of the accommodation. Such an application for amendment was allowed by the Trial Court, compelling the tenant-petitioner to come to this Court in present writ petition. One of the grounds taken by the respondent-landlord before the Trial Court was that since the accommodation in question has been declared as ‘dilapidated’ by Nagar Palika Parishad, therefore, respondent has no option, but to request for release of such accommodation. 4. Having perused the impugned order dated 01.7.2016, it transpires that the learned Court below has not discussed the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which includes its proviso while allowing the amendment application of the landlord-respondent. The Court below has simply said that the amendment is necessary for the proper adjudication of the application under Section 21(1) (a) of Act no. 13 of 1972. The Court has also observed that the amendment sought for, does not adversely affect the interests of the parties and that nature of litigation is also not changed. 5. But the learned Court below has forgotten that the Trial has commenced, even the landlord’s evidence has been completed, and then what was the occasion for the landlord not to raise a new ground for eviction of the accommodation earlier. A plea may be raised that the Nagar Palika Parishad wrote a letter to the landlord on 30.5.2016, which is received by the landlord on 02.6.2016, declaring the accommodation has dilapidated, but the possibility of landlord’s procuring such a letter from Nagar Palika Parishad can not be ruled out. A plea may be raised that the Nagar Palika Parishad wrote a letter to the landlord on 30.5.2016, which is received by the landlord on 02.6.2016, declaring the accommodation has dilapidated, but the possibility of landlord’s procuring such a letter from Nagar Palika Parishad can not be ruled out. All these aspects ought to have been taken care of by the Trial Court while allowing the application of the landlord under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 6. Once the Court has come to prima facie finding that the order impugned is bad in law, it should have issued notice to the respondent and should have stayed the ongoing proceedings before the Court below, but that, in all certainty would have procrastinated the trial. And again, who knows when the writ petition will be decided? Slow moving wheels of justice have compelled this Court to pass the following order, only in order to save the time. 7. This Court, therefore, purely in the interest of justice, feels it convenient to remit the matter back to the Trial Court for disposal of amendment application afresh, after hearing both the parties, in accordance with law. Order impugned is accordingly set aside. 8. Since present writ petition is being decided without notice to the respondent, therefore, liberty is granted to the respondent to move for recall of this order, if she feels aggrieved with the same.