WEST WATCH COMPANY Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the tenant/petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash order dated 22.2.2013 passed in Rent Appeal No. 45 of 2011, by which amendment application of the respondent/tenant has been rejected. The landlord is opposite party No. 2 who has put in appearance and pleadings have been exchanged. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. Admittedly, the petitioner is a tenant of shop of which the opposite party No. 2 is landlord who filed release application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which has been allowed by the learned Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 10 of 2008. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order the petitioner/tenant has filed appeal. During the course of appeal the petitioner/tenant moved an amendment application before the learned First Appellate Court on the grounds inter alia that the petitioner came to know that the disputed building is situated on Nazul land bearing plot No. 183; the application of the landlord for converting Nazul plot into freehold has been rejected on the ground that the land on which the structure is situated have been earmarked in the master plan for road widening; the lease in favour of the landlord/opposite party No. 2 has been expired in the year 2008; another plea taken in the amendment application was that this was a subsequent event as the landlord has made an application for conversion of Nazul land into freehold on 14.9.2010 which was not in the knowledge of the tenant earlier; another suit for eviction of adjoining shop in favour of opposite party No. 2 has been allowed etc.

(2.) The learned Trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the plea of Nazul land has already been taken in the written statement which has been considered during the hearing of appeal and, as such, no amendment can be permitted on this score in the written statement. The learned Trial Court also held that the matter relating to adjoining shop No. 63 is still subjudice and the landlord/opposite party No. 2 has not obtained possession over the shop in question.

(3.) I have scrutinized the contents of amendment application and the written statement filed by the petitioner/tenant. The plea sought for to be incorporated by way of amendment already finds place in the written statement. Mere elaboration is not required under the law. All the pleas sought to be amended have been taken in para 27 of the written statement. While deciding application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 the learned Prescribed Authority or the learned Appellate Court are not required to enter into the factum of ownership. All the matters under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 relate to relationship of landlord and tenant.