RAMJI DAS Vs. RAJENDRA MOHAN MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This is tenant's petition challenging the order dated 28.4.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement. The facts are that respondent no.1 is a retired Colonel of Indian Army and respondent no.2 is Wing Commander in Indian Air Force and thus are the soldiers within the meaning of the phrase comprised in Section 21(1) Explanation (iii) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short "the Act'). An application under Section 21(1)(2) of the Act was filed by them for release of the disputed accommodation which is in the tenancy of the petitioners. The release was sought on the ground that respondent no.1 has retired from the Army and respondent no.2 is going to retire on 30.9.2006 and the disputed accommodation was required by them for residential purposes. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 18.5.2005 allowed the release application. Against the order of the Prescribed Authority the petitioner-tenants went up in revision. During the pendency of the appeal an application was filed seeking amendment in the written statement. By means of the proposed amendment it was sought to be added in the written statement that respondents-landlords were having sufficient residential accommodation at Delhi and Gurgaon respectively and during the pendency of the appeal it came to the knowledge that respondent no.2 is having a huge banglow at A-3/110 Janakpuri, Delhi which was in the name of Smt. Minaxi Mathur wife of respondent no.2 and they were residing in the said banglow. It was also sought to be added in the written statement that respondent no.1 was also having a huge banglow knows as "Mathurs" at F-42, Tulip Garden, Gurgaon, Hariyana where he was residing along with his family. The respondents-landlords contested the amendment application. The appellate authority vide order dated 28.4.2006 rejected the amendment application. Feeling aggrieved the tenants-petitioners have approached this court by means of instant petition.

(3.) The appellate authority rejected the amendment on the ground that the facts sought to be pleaded by way of amendment have no relevance at all to the controversy and the amendment application has been filed to delay the disposal of the proceedings. It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that amendment sought by the petitioners was necessary for determining the real controversy in between the parties and went to the root of the matter and the appellate authority has wrongly rejected the same. In reply it has been urged by learned counsel for the respondents that the facts sought to be brought on record by way of proposed amendment were not at all relevant for the purpose of determining the controversy between the parties as in case of an application moved by an Indian Soldier for release of the accommodation in view of explanation (iii) and the fourth proviso neither bonafide need is required to be proved nor comparative hardship is to be taken into consideration. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Explanation (iii) to Section 21 reads as under :