Allahabad High Court
Amar Nath Yadav vs Renu Agarwal And Another on 12 March, 2021
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4030 of 2020
Petitioner :- Amar Nath Yadav
Respondent :- Renu Agarwal And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishi Chadha
Counsel for Respondent :- Madhav Jain
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Rishi Chadha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Madhay Jain, learned counsel appearing for the landlord- respondent.
Present petition has been filed with following prayers:-
"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari by quashing order dated 15.2.2020 passed by the Court Additional District & Session Judge (Court No. 3), Agra in Rent Control Misc. Appeal No. 151/ 2016, Shri Amar Nath Versus Smt. Renu Agarwal and others. (Contained in Annexure No. 1 to this Writ Petition) and also direct the court below to allow the amendment application (Paper No. 46-Ka) and take into consideration the amendment application along with the affidavit filed therewith and the facts stated therein may be taken on record and be treated as part of the pleadings."
By the impugned order dated 15.2.2020, the application paper no. 46-ka filed by the petitioner for seeking amendment was rejected by the lower appellate court on the ground of delay as well as on the ground of that earlier an application paper no. 38-ga was filed before the prescribed authority, which was rejected by the prescribed authority vide order dated 14.10.2014 and the same was never challenged, therefore, there is no reason to allow the present application. It has further been noticed that by means of amendment the petitioner is seeking withdrawal of the admission made in the written statement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing attention to paragraph 26 of the memo of appeal filed before the court below, submitted that the observation of the appellate court that the order of the trial court rejecting the amendment application was not under challenge, is incorrect and if allowed to stand may cause prejudice to the tenant- petitioner herein.
Learned counsel for the respondents fairly admits that paragraph 26 indicates that order rejecting amendment applications filed by the petitioner are under challenge in appeal.
Insofar, rejection of amendment application on merits is concerned, I am not inclined to go into the same, inasmuch as, the same are under challenge before the appellate authority.
Accordingly, without interfering in the order impugned herein present petition stands disposed of with the observations that while deciding the appeal, the observations made in the impugned order dated 15.2.2020 that the earlier order dated 14.10.2014 was never challenged by tenant- petitioner, shall not come in way and that while deciding the appeal the independent mind shall be applied by the lower appellate court.
At this stage, Sri Madhay Jain, learned counsel for the landlord- respondents states that the appeal is pending before the lower appellate court since 2016 and the court below be directed to decide the appeal within time bound period.
Accordingly, the lower appellate court is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid appeal in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim 2017 (8) SCC 611 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months strictly in accordance with law from the date of production of self- attested copy of this order, which may be verified from the official website of this Court.
With the aforesaid observations/ directions, present petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.3.2021
Aditya
