VIJAY BHATT Vs. JULIAN ABRAHAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.5.2004 passed by prescribed authority/C.J.M., Nainital by which the amendment has been rejected. Briefly stated the Case No. 8 of 1999 was filed by the respondent No. 1 before the prescribed authority being application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, praying for the release in respect of the premises bearing Municipal No. 80/2, Ward No. 9, D. No. 122 District Nainital. In paragraphs 1 and 3 of the application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, it has been stated that he is the owner and landlord of the house. Paragraphs 1 and 3 are quoted below: -

(2.) IN the objection it has been mentioned to the following effect:

(3.) SINCE the question relates to the fact as to whether the respondent is the landlord and owner, the petitioner has already admitted this fact. However, even assuming that he is the co -owner, he has every right to file the suit or proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as every co -owner has right to file the suit in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sri. Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and others : 1976 SC 2335. It has been held as under: -