DILIP KUMAR Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 2nd November, 2004, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that the contesting respondents- landlord filed an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, (herein-in-after referred to as 'the Act') before the prescribed authority for the release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord on the ground that the same is bona fide required by the landlord for personal use. The said release application was contested by the petitioner-tenant before the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority after considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record vide its order dated 30th April, 2004 have allowed the release application filed by the contesting respondents-landlord and directed the petitioner-tenant to vacate the accommodation in question.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order dated 30th April, 2004, passed by the prescribed authority, the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the appellate authority. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before the appellate authority, the petitioner-tenant filed an application which has been numbered as 16-Ka seeking amendment in its written statement before the prescribed authority. This amendment application seeks to add several paragraphs in the written statement, like paragraphs 21A, 21B, 21C and 21D. The contesting respondent-landlord contested the aforesaid amendment application filed by the petitioner-tenant and has stated in its objection that this application has been filed only to delay the disposal of the appeal and further that these facts were very well in the knowledge of the petitioner-tenant and that tenant had already filed several applications for amendment during 8-9 years of the pendency of the matter before the prescribed authority, but has not brought these facts on record, nor any amendment to the aforesaid effect was prayed for. From the very opening sentence of the amendment application, it appears that the application was filed when the appeal was fixed for hearing, as it says that while learned Counsel for the appellant was preparing the case for hearing it found that certain facts which have come into existence during the pendency of the litigation, could not be brought on the record, it is therefore necessary to bring these facts on record by way of the amendment sought through the application 16Ka.