MOTI Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dated 15th July, 1995, passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioners in the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Respondent No. 2 is landlord of house No. 340 New Ward No. 12 Pikaura Baksh, Basti City, Basti. He filed application for release of the house in question against Smt. Daulata Devi, Moti, Kallu alias Jawahar Lal and Munnu Prasad, under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The said application was filed on the ground that disputed accommodation was required for residential purpose. One of the facts stated in the application was that the tenants had sub -let the accommodation in dispute to Shri Krishna Kumar son of Raj Kishore. The tenants filed written statement and denied this fact that they had sublet any portion of the disputed accommodation. They also denied that the landlord bonafide needed the premises in question. Parties filed affidavits in support of their contention.

(2.) PETITIONERS filed application dated 14.9.1994 for amendment of their written statement. It was urged that Krishna Kumar son of Raj Kishore is related to the landlord and this fact was not disclosed in the written statement and the tenants had come to know of it subsequently. They also sought to add certain paragraphs which indicated that landlord did not require the accommodation in question.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the respondent No. 2 had filed application for release of the accommodation and one of the facts stated in the application was that petitioners had sublet accommodation in question to one Sri Krishna Kumar. The petitioners had denied this fact in his written statement. The petitioners subsequently came to know that Sri Krishna Kumar is in fact related to respondent No. 2.