DINA NATH Vs. USHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and also Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. The petitioner is a tenant and respondent No. 1, Smt. Usha Devi, is the landlady. The respondent No. 1, Smt. Usha Devi, filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The Prescribed Authority by his judgment and order dated 22 -4 -1989 allowed the Application of the landlady, after hearing both the parties and examining the materials on record. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 89 of 1989. This appeal, ultimately, came up before the V Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal two applications were moved, one for filing paper (29 Ga) in the appellate court and the second application (26 Ga) was moved for amendment. By the first application, for filing papers, the petitioner sought to file letter, Annexure -2 to the writ petition, which is undated, but the seal of the post office is dated 1 -10 -1990. This letter is purported to have been written in respect of the shop in dispute by a person who wanted to purchase the shop and wanted to pay premium to the petitioner for vacating the same. This letter came into existence for the first time during the pendency of the appeal. By the amendment application the petitioner wanted to make two amendments and also sought to correct the clerical mistake. He wanted to correct the name of Masood Ahmad as Masoodul Aziz. By these two amendment applications the petitioner wanted to plead that the husband of the respondent landlady was already having a shop of Corporation on rent in the name of some other persons and, therefore, the need of the landlady was neither bona fide nor genuine and it has ceased to exist. In the amendment sought there is no mention that when this shop was taken and why this fact could not be brought earlier to the notice of the Prescribed Authority in the written statement. However, the amendment sought was that the petitioner wanted to bring on record the aforesaid letter, Annexure -2 to the writ petition, by making averment that the landlady was, in fact, interested in selling the shop and there was no genuine or bona fide need.

(2.) AFTER hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 5 -4 -1991, certified copy of which has been filed to this writ petition, the appellate court dismissed the amendment application and also the above mentioned application. Hence this petition has been filed.