RAMJI LAL Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, MATHURA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd July, 1990. By the impugned order the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge, has rejected the application for amendment. The defendant wanted to incorporate amendment in the written statement to the effect that initially Smt. Mewadevi, wife of Padam Chandra was the landlord and after her death all her heirs and legal representatives would become landlord of the disputed premises. This amendment, in my opinion, has been rightly refused by the learned Judge and the order does not suffer from any illegality or error of jurisdiction. There is nothing to indicate that Padam Chandra, who filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not the sole landlord. Even if earlier Smt. Mewadevi, his wife, was landlord and later on the tenant treated only Padam Chandra as landlord and rent was paid to him and the same was accepted by him. There is nothing on record to establish that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not between the Petitioner and Padam Chandra, respondent No. 2, for other reasons also the application under Section 21(1)(a) would be maintainable, even if the same is filed by Padam Chandra alone.

(2.) FOR the reasons stated above, the petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.