HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13425 of 2011 Petitioner :- Abdul Sattar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Rajesh Singh,A.K. Tyagi Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C. Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
This petition is directed against judgment and order dated 7.2.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Saharanpur in Rent Appeal No. 19 of 2010, by which application ( Paper No. 9 Ka ) moved by the tenant petitioner for amendment in his written statement at final hearing stage, has been rejected.
Respondent landlord moved an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction ) Act, 1972 for release of the shop in question under tenancy of the petitioner. The release application was contested by the petitioner tenant by filing his written statement. The Prescribed authority vide its judgment and order dated 18.8.2010, allowed the release application.
Challenging the judgment and order dated 18.8.2010, the tenant petitioner has preferred Rent Appeal No. 19 of 2010. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner moved an application paper no. 9 Ka, for amendment in his written statement. Objection to the aforesaid application was filed by the respondent landlord.
The lower appellate court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that all the facts which the petitioner tenant want to incorporate in his written statement, were in his knowledge from before. Though he has filed documentary evidence in regard to amendment sought by him but he had not taken any plea in his written statement and the application for amendment appears to have been moved to delay decision in the appeal and accordingly rejected the application by the impugned order dated 7.2.2011.
In the facts and circumstances and for the reasons stated above, there appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the order. The order impugned is an inter locutory order and the appeal filed by the petitioner is yet to be decided on merit. Admittedly, the petitioner had the documents in his favour which he has filed in the case but had not taken any plea which was to be supported by these documents and which pleas he now wants to take at the stage of final arguments. In case the amendment application is allowed at this stage, the fresh pleas taken by the petitioner would require the documents to be proved and supported by fresh oral evidence. Therefore, the court has rightly come to the conclusion that petitioner only wants to delay the hearing. What would be the nature of suit after new amended pleadings and evidence is a probability which cannot be permitted to be taken note of at the time of final hearing, hence this Court is not inclined to interfere in the interlocutory order at this stage.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 7.3.2011 SNT/