MAHIPAL SINGH AND ORS. Vs. YAMEEN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition has been filed by the landlord/petitioners against the order dated 23 April 2009 passed by Appellate Authority under Act No.XIII of 1972 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed, the order dated 23 January 2007 passed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), J.P. Nagar rejecting the release application of the landlord was affirmed.

(2.) The landlord/petitioners filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No.XIII of 1972 with regard to two shops in separate tenement situate at Mohalla Bishanpur (Main Bazar), Kanth, Amroha (J.P. Nagar). The release was sought setting up the need of the second and third petitioners, Mukut Lal and Prem Prakash respectively. It was stated that the first petitioner is already running a shoe shop. The release application was contested by the respondent/tenant by filing objection/written statement. The release application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority returning a finding that the need of the landlord/petitioners was found neither bonafide nor genuine as admittedly all the petitioners were in Government Service. The first petitioner is working in the Post Office, the second petitioner is a constable in I.T.B.P. while the third petitioner is employed as an Assistant Teacher in a school run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal, during pendency of the appeal, an application was moved seeking amendment of the release application setting up the need of the two sons of the first petitioner, namely, Rahul Dev and Lokendra Kumar being unemployed and for the wife of third petitioner who desired to engage herself in some business, therefore, the need of the petitioners were dropped. The Appellate Authority was of the view that by the amendment application, the need that was sought to be set up were totally new, which therefore, would require consideration upon fresh evidence, the petitioners would, therefore, have to file a fresh release application setting up the need of the sons of first petitioner and wife of third petitioner, consequently, the appeal was dismissed, the order of the Prescribed Authority was affirmed.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the courts below have committed an error in rejecting the need set up for the sons and wife of first and third petitioners respectively as that would come within the ambit and scope of subsequent events occurring during the pendency of the case.