SUSHEEL KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE SULTANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.M.K. Chaudhary, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Adnan Ahmad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nirpendra Mishra holding brief of Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 as well as Mr. Sanjay Tripathi, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and perused the record. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 2.11.2011 passed on amendment application in Rent Appeal No. 5 of 2008 by which the amendment application has been rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a suit under section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act of 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) for release on the ground of comparative hardship was filed by the opposite party No. 2, who is the landlady, against the petitioner. The said application under section 21 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act of 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) was allowed. Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal. In the pending appeal, the petitioner had moved an application for amendment for bringing on record the fact that there are several co-owners of the property in question.

(2.) The submission of the petitioner's Counsel is that the petitioner being a tenant had purchased a share of the building from the co-sharers of the property in question. It is necessary to bring this fact on record for proper adjudication of the case. However, the amendment application has been rejected by the impugned order.

(3.) Mr. Sanjay Tripathi, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 on the other hand submitted that this fact was already on record in para 50 of the Written statement filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court and this fact can very well be looked into by the learned Court below while deciding the appeal.