MAHESH KUMAR Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.C. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 3.9.2013 passed by the learned Prescribed Authority/ACMM IX, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 12 of 2010 (Pradeep Kumar and another v. Mahesh Kumar) by which petitioner's amendment application seeking amendment in the written statement has been rejected.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this case are that it appears, the respondents-landlords have filed release application No. 12 of 2010 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short, 'the Act') for release of the accommodation in dispute. To the aforesaid application, a written statement was filed. After closing of the evidence of the parties, on 13.8.2013 an application seeking amendment in the written statement was filed under Section 34(1)(g) of the Act praying the Court to permit the petitioner to amend the written statement by adding ground No. 14-A. To this application, an objection was filed by the respondents-landlords stating that the respondents could have raised the plea of 6 month's notice while filing the written statement and now, at this stage, it cannot be permitted to raise because he has waived his right to raise the plea of notice.

(3.) Learned Prescribed Authority, taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court in B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and others, 2000 1 SCC 712, has rejected the petitioner's amendment application holding that by not taking this objection at the initial stage, the petitioner has waived his right to raise the plea of six months notice and at the final hearing stage, he cannot be permitted to amend the written statement.