Allahabad High Court
Heeralal (Deceased) And 2 Others vs Rajendra Prasad (Deceased) And 7 Others on 22 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:170859
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6062 of 2023
Heeralal (Deceased) And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Rajendra Prasad (Deceased) And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Anil Kumar Bajpai, Jitendra Kumar, Prakash Chandra Dwivedi, Rajeev Kumar Singh, Tanmay Agrawal
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Anadi Krishna Narayana, Ashish Agrawal, Neeharika Sinha Narayana
Court No: - 37
Reserved On:- 26.8.2025
Delivered On:- 22.9.2025
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prakash Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that father of petitioner no.1/1, namely, Heera Lal Agrawal and the Firm Sunder Lal Ram Bharosey were the tenants of shop nos. 5/23 and 5/24, situated at Nehru Road, Farrukhabad and plaintiff-respondent no.1/Rajendra Prasad (now deceased) and plaintiff-respondent no.2/Virendra Prasad (now deceased) were the landlord of the same. Rajendra Prasad/plaintiff-respondent no.1 and Virendra Prasad/plaintiff-respondent no.2 instituted a case under Section 21(1)(a) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. Act No.13 of 1972") on 23.12.1992. The release was sought on the ground that the son of Rajendra Prasad, namely, Prabhat Kumar has to set up his business as well as for the purpose of the marriage of Prabhat Kumar. The plaint was subsequently amended by inserting paragraph no.6(A) which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 17.5.1996. In the aforementioned P.A.Case, written statement was filed on 6.12.1993 by father of plaintiffs-petitioners, namely, Heera Lal, denying the allegations of the plaint. During pendency of the aforementioned P.A. Case, amendment was sought by the defendant also which was allowed vide order dated 5.1.1996 and the amendments were incorporated in the written statement. Petitioners' father filed his additional written statement in reply to the amendment inserted in the release application. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 30.8.1996 rejected the release application of plaintiff-respondent. Against the order dated 30.8.1996, plaintiffs-respondents filed appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No.65 of 1996. During pendency of the aforementioned appeal, plaintiff-respondent no.1 (Rajendra Prasad) died, accordingly, his wife Smt. Santosh Agrawal was substituted in the appeal as appellant no.1/1. Plaintiff-respondent no.2 Virendra Prasad Agrawal also died, accordingly, the legal heir was substituted in place of plaintiff-respondent no.2. Petitioners' father also died during pendency of appeal, accordingly, petitioners' mother, petitioners, brother and sisters were substituted. The appellate court vide judgment dated 25.11.1997 allowed the aforementioned appeal, set aside the judgment dated 30.8.1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority. Against the appellate order dated 25.11.1997, petitioners' father filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.7808/1998 before this Court. This Court vide judgment dated 28.9.2000, allowed the aforementioned writ petition filed by the petitioners' father, setting aside the order dated 25.11.1997 and remanded the matter back before the appellate authority to examine the issue of bonafide need and comparative hardship in proper manner. After the remand order passed by this Court, plaintiff-respondent nos.1/1 and 2/1 to 2/4 filed an amendment application dated 21.7.2022 (58-A1) in Rent Control Appeal No.65/1996, stating that the original tenant Heera Lal Agrawal, his wife and sons have purchased a building situated at Lohai Road, Farrukhabad by four registered sale deeds dated 21.5.1984, as such, para no.6(A) of the release application should be deleted and another para (a) should be added. Petitioners filed their objection to the amendment application dated 21.7.2022, stating that by way of amendment, the plaintiffs-respondents want to escape their admitted self-proposed-offer made in paragraph no.6(A) of the release application, as such, the amendment cannot be allowed. The appellate court vide order dated 29.4.2023 allowed the amendment application (paper no. 58-A1) filed by plaintiffs-respondents. Hence, this petition for the following relief:-
"Issue an order or direction for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.4.2023, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Farrukhabad in Rent Control Appeal No.65 of 1996 (Rajendra Prasad and Others vs. Heera Lal and Others), whereby the amendment application (paper no.58-A) filed by the plaintiffs-respondents has been allowed, Annexure No.1 to the writ petition."
3. This Court entertained the matter on 26.5.2023 and stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 29.4.2023. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the parties have exchanged their pleadings.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that while allowing the amendment application of the plaintiffs-respondents, the appellate court has exceeded its jurisdiction and misinterpreted the judgment dated 28.9.2000, passed by this Court. He submitted that after passing of the long considerable period, the plaintiff-respondent no.1/1 and 2/1 to 2/4 have filed amendment application (58-A) dated 21.7.2022, stating that the original tenants are wife and sons, who have purchased a building at Lohai Road, Farrukhabad by four registered sale deed dated 21.5.1984 which cannot be taken into consideration as well as allowed by the appellate court during pendency of the appeal against the order, rejecting the release application of the landlord. He further submitted that the appellate court has not considered the finding recorded by this Court while deciding the Writ Petition No.7808/1998. He further submitted that the amendment has been sought after 26 years from the date of filing of release application which is abuse of process of law. He submitted that the impugned order dated 29.4.2023 should be set aside and amendment application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents should be rejected.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents submitted that paragraph no.6(A) of the release application was incorporated by the answering respondent by means of an amendment which was only an offer and the said offer was never accepted by the petitioners. He further submitted that petitioners filed additional written statement in which paragraph no.6(A) of the release application was categorically denied, hence, the offer made by the answering respondent was rejected by the petitioners, as such, the answering respondents are free to withdraw the said offer. He submitted that this court while remanding the matter to the appellate court, has referred the contents of paragraph no.6(A) of the release application and has observed that the contesting respondents by their statement of facts made in paragraph no.6(A) of the release application has not been withdrawn specifically. He further submitted that this Court while remanding the matter, directed the authority to take into consideration the offer made by the petitioners to provide suitable shop to the contesting respondents while deciding the appeal. He submitted that the appellate court has rightly allowed the amendment application filed by the answering respondent for deleting paragraph no.6(A) from their release application. He submitted that offer was made by landlord in the year 1996 and since then circumstances and requirements have changed, as such, there is no bar to file amendment application during pendency of the proceeding. He further submitted that no limitation is prescribed for filing the amendment application, as such, there is no illegality in allowing the amendment application. He submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order, allowing the amendment application and instant petition filed by the petitioners should be dismissed. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2019 0 Supreme (All) 2200, Shiv Mohan Pal vs. Shiv Mohan Pal @ Hakla in support of his arguments.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that the application for release filed by plaintiffs-respondents-landlord was rejected by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 30.8.1996 and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-respondents was allowed vide order dated 25.11.1997, setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30.8.1996 and the release application filed by the landlord was allowed. There is also no dispute about the fact that in writ petition filed by the tenant, the order passed by the appellate court has been set aside vide judgment dated 28.9.2000 and the matter was remanded back before the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh, taking into consideration the offer made by the petitioners to provide the suitable shop to the contesting respondents at Lohai Road, Farrukhabad. There is also no dispute about the fact that after remand order dated 28.9.2000, passed by this Court, the proceeding started before the appellate court and an amendment application (58-A) filed by plaintiff-respondent has been allowed under the impugned order.
8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of paragraph no.6(A) of the release application which was added by way of amendment vide order dated 7.5.1996, will be relevant which is as under:-
"6?- ?? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ??? ?????????? ????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ???????? ????? ?? ????????? ?????? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????????? ??? ??? (????? ???) ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ??? ?? ????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???"
9. The perusal of the additional written statement filed by the tenant dated 17.5.1996 will also be relevant which is as under:-
"???????? ???? ?????????? / ????? ?? ????? ?.???.? ???????????
??.?. ??? ?????? 21 ???? 1992
????????? ??????
?????
???? ???
???????? ???????? ???? ????????? ?????????? ?? :-
1. ?? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? 6? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????????? ?? ???? ??, ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????????? ?? ??????? ???? ???
2. ?? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?????????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ??????????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ???
3. ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? 6 ? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????????? ???? ???
4. ?? ?? ????????????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ?????????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???
5. ?? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? 6? ????? ????????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ?
??????? ?????? ?? ????????????? ?? ?????????? ?? ????????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???
??? ??????? ?? ?????? 17.5.96 ?? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ???????? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? 1 ?? 5 ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ????
??????? ???????"
10. It is material to mention that release application filed by landlord was rejected by the Prescribed Authority but in appeal, the release application was allowed by the appellate court. This Court while allowing the writ petition, filed by the tenant and remanding the matter back before the appellate authority, has made observation regarding the averment made in paragraph no.6(A) of the release application which has not been withdrawn by the landlord, should be taken into consideration by the court while considering the release application of the landlord. The operative portion of the judgment of this Court will be relevant for perusal which is as under:-
"The writ petition succeeds end is allowed. The judgment and order dated 25.11. 1997 passed by the respondent no. 1 is hereby quashed. The case is remanded to the Appellate authority for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above. The Appellate Authority shall also take into consideration the offer made by the petitioner to provide a suitable shop to the contesting respondents at Lohai Road while deciding the appeal. It is further observed that the appeal shall be decided expeditiously."
11. After remand order passed by this Court, the amendment application (paper no.58-A-1) has been filed by the plaintiffs-respondents, stating that the averment made in paragraph no.6(A) should be read as under:-
"2-"63- ?? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ?????????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ???????, ?????? ??????, ????? ??????? ? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ???????? ????????? ???????? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? 21-5-1984 ???? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ??????? ???"
??? ?? ?????? ????????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? 1-7-22?? ????? ??????? ???? ????
???????????"
12. The appellate court has considered the amendment application dated 21.7.2022 (paper no.58-A-1), considering the entire aspect of the matter to the effect that offer was made by landlord at the relevant point of time but tenant was not ready to accept the offer and at present that offer cannot be satisfied by the landlord in view of the present facts and circumstances of the case.
13. It is material to mention that release application was filed by the landlord in the year 1992 and till date the landlord is contesting for the release of a shop from the tenants. It is also material to mention that the tenant has specifically denied the amended paragraph no.6(A) of the release application, as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order, allowing the amendment application of the landlord with respect to paragraph no.6(A) of the release application.
14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, there is no illegality in the order impugned, allowing the amendment application filed by the landlord under the impugned order dated 29.4.2023.
15. No interference is required in the matter.
16. The instant petition is dismissed and the appellate court is directed to decide the pending Rent Control Appeal No.65/1996, expeditiously preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, in accordance with law.
17. No order as to costs.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
September 22, 2025
C.Prakash
