DINESH CHAUDHRI Vs. IXTH ADJ KANPUR NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The landlord-respondent moved an application under section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as Rent Case No. 78 of 2005. The tenant-petitioner contested the case, by filing written statement. An application for amending the release application moved by the landlord-respondent was allowed.

(2.) The prescribed authority by its judgment and order dated 11.8.2008, allowed the release application. Aggrieved by the order, the tenant-petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No. 100 of 2008.

(3.) During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner moved an application dated 7.1.2011 for permission to file additional written statement on the ground that petitioner was not satisfied with the working of his earlier Counsel, hence he changed the Counsel in appeal and engaged a new Counsel who advised him that prescribed authority had not granted time to the petitioner to file additional written statement which is necessary to be filed in the facts and circumstances of the case. Objection to the aforesaid application was filed by the landlord-respondent. The Appellate Court by its order dated 29.1.2011 rejected the aforesaid application holding that application has been moved to delay decision in the appeal and fixed 18.1.2011 for arguments. Just after ten days, the tenant-petitioner moved another application dated 8.2.2011 for amendment in the written statement which was also objected to by the landlord.