ISHWAR BHAI PATEL Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.N. Tilhari, learned Counsel for the respondents. The factual matrix to the present case, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, are that the controversy in the present case relates to house situate at mohalla Railway ganj Hardoi Pergana Gopamau Tehsil and District Hardoi. The said house owned by one Sri Triyogi Narain Gupta. He moved an application for release under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act (Act No. 13 of 1972) on 9.9.2002 and the same was registered as P.A. Case No. 9 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Hardoi. In the said case, the present petitioner, who was respondent had filed a written statement on 18.11.2003.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order dated 23.4.2009 passed by opposite party No. 1 has submitted that as certain new facts has been stated on behalf of the respondent/landlord in the replication as such in view of the said subsequent developments it is necessary in the interest of justice that additional written statement should be taken on record so the order passed by the respondent No. 1 is illegal and liable to be set aside.

(3.) Sri R.N. Tilhari, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that no additional facts whatsoever had been taken in the replication filed by the petitioner and only the facts which had already taken in the release application earlier by the landlord are elaborated in the replication as such there is no need to file additional written statement by the tenant. In view of the said fact the order dated 23.4.2009 passed by opposite party No. 1 is perfectly valid. He further submits that the petitioner has already moved an application supported by an affidavit for recalling the order dated 23.4.2009, which is challenged in the present writ petition, before opposite party No. 1 and the same is still pending for adjudication so the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.