Uttarakhand High Court
Prabhat Kishore vs Smt. Rukmani Devi on 25 November, 2025
2025:UHC:10486
Judgment Reserved On: 29.10.2025
Judgment Delivered On: 25.11.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.668 of 2024
Prabhat Kishore ......Petitioner
Vs.
Smt. Rukmani Devi ....Respondent
Presence: Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Sah, learned counsel for Respondent.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The Petitioner is a tenant-turned-property-transferee of premises
situate at Rama Market, Haridwar Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun.
Originally, the premises were the subject of P.A. Case No. 01 of 2013,
instituted by the Respondent under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.
13 of 1972 seeking release for the alleged bona fide requirement of her
grandson. During the pendency of those proceedings, the parties entered
into a written compromise dated 22.04.2013, duly verified before the
Prescribed Authority. Under the said compromise, it was mutually
agreed that the ownership and possession of the tenanted premises
bearing No. 435, Rama Market would vest in the Petitioner, whereas the
Respondent would acquire the terrace portions of properties bearing Nos.
433 and 434 and the staircase. The compromise further recorded that the
parties would execute the consequential sale deeds.
2. In view of the said compromise, the release application was
disposed of on 23.04.2013 by the learned Prescribed Authority on agreed
terms. It is further case of the Petitioner that despite repeated requests,
the Respondent did not execute sale deeds in terms of the compromise,
but instead, filed a fresh release application being P.A. Case No. 05 of
1
Writ Petition No. 668 of 2024, Prabhat Kishore Vs Rukmani Devi-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10486
2020, again invoking Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, alleging bona fide need
in respect of the same premises, without disclosing that the ownership
had already stood transferred under the compromise.
3. In the said P.A. Case No. 05 of 2020, the Petitioner's application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was rejected on 22.11.2020, leading to
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2539 of 2021, which was disposed of by this
Court on 05.07.2023, holding that although Order VII Rule 11 CPC
applies to proceedings under the Act, the defence must ordinarily be
raised in objections.
4. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed written objections and subsequently
moved an amendment application, seeking to introduce specific
pleadings relating to (i) the compromise and mutual transfer of
ownership, (ii) various sale deeds executed by the Respondent divesting
her of ownership in adjoining shops, and (iii) pendency of Suit No. 81 of
2023 arising out of the same compromise. The Respondent filed
objections thereto.
5. Vide order dated 22.02.2024, the learned Prescribed Authority
partly allowed the amendment, to the limited extent of permitting the
fact of filing of Suit No. 81 of 2023 to be added, but rejected other
proposed amendments concerning the sale deeds and alleged lack of
bona fide need. The Prescribed Authority held that such amendments
were not necessary for adjudication of the release application.
6. Aggrieved by the partial rejection of the amendment application,
the Petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, seeking supervisory correction of the impugned
order.
2
Writ Petition No. 668 of 2024, Prabhat Kishore Vs Rukmani Devi-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10486
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the proposed
amendments in paragraphs 52A, 52B and 52C are integral to the real
controversy in the release application. It is urged that the Respondent's
alleged subsequent conduct of selling shops and dealing with the
properties obtained under the compromise goes directly to the issue of
her bona fide need and availability of suitable accommodation, which is
the core question in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972. The sale deeds and transactions sought to be pleaded are
said to be either subsequent developments or events that came to the
notice of the Petitioner at a later point of time, and are therefore
necessary to be brought on record to enable a just decision of the dispute.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the well settled
principle that amendments to pleadings should be approached with a
liberal and pragmatic attitude, particularly in the case of a defendant's
written statement.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the
learned Prescribed Authority has neither found the amendment to be
mala fide nor has held that it would change the nature of the
proceedings, and therefore, rejection of material portions of the
amendment is contrary to the settled principles.
10. It is further contended that the stage at which the amendment was
sought, that is, after conclusion of the Respondent's evidence but before
commencement of the Petitioner's evidence, is not such as to cause any
irremediable prejudice. If the amendment is allowed, the Respondent can
always be given liberty to file an additional reply and to adduce such
further evidence as she may consider necessary. The Petitioner asserts
that the omission of the proposed averments in the original written
3
Writ Petition No. 668 of 2024, Prabhat Kishore Vs Rukmani Devi-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10486
statement was inadvertent and that the amendment application was filed
as soon as the omission was noticed while preparing the evidence.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent supports the
impugned order. It is submitted that the proceedings in P.A. Case No. 05
of 2020 had progressed substantially and were at the stage of the
Petitioner's evidence when the amendment application was filed. It is
contended that the facts sought to be introduced by way of paragraphs
52A, 52B and 52C pertain to alleged sales and dealings with shops and
properties which, in any event, were within the knowledge of the
Petitioner long before filing of the written statement. The Respondent
submits that the Petitioner has failed to establish due diligence in terms
of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
12. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submits that the nature
of the proposed amendment, in so far as it incorporates details of sale
deeds, alleged alienation of shops and disputes about the compromise,
would enlarge the compass of inquiry in the release application and
effectively convert the proceedings into a title dispute, which is beyond
the limited jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972. It is urged that the learned Prescribed Authority has
exercised a sound discretion in allowing the amendment only to the
extent of bringing on record the factum of Original Suit No. 81 of 2023,
while declining the rest.
13. Learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the impugned
order is a reasoned exercise of discretion by the Prescribed Authority
and does not warrant interference.
4
Writ Petition No. 668 of 2024, Prabhat Kishore Vs Rukmani Devi-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10486
14. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.
15. The proceedings before the learned Prescribed Authority arise out
of a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of
1972, wherein the Respondent seeks release of the tenanted premises on
the ground of bona fide requirement. The Petitioner is contesting the
release and has already filed his objections. It is not in dispute that the
evidence of the Respondent has been concluded and that the matter is
now at the stage of the Petitioner's evidence.
16. The amendment application filed by the Petitioner seeks to
introduce certain additional pleadings, primarily contained in the
proposed paragraphs 52A, 52B and 52C of the written statement. By
these proposed paragraphs, the Petitioner wishes to bring on record the
alleged subsequent conduct of the Respondent in dealing with various
shops and properties, as also the details of transactions which, according
to the Petitioner, have a direct bearing on the question whether the
Respondent has any continuing bona fide need for the premises in
question.
17. The core defence that the Petitioner seeks to advance through the
proposed amendment is that, in the backdrop of the earlier compromise
between the parties and the exchange of properties recorded therein, the
subsequent alienations and dealings by the Respondent indicate that she
is not in genuine need of the premises and that sufficient alternative
accommodation is available. The plea is, thus, not a new or foreign issue,
but a further development of the existing defence based on absence of
bona fide requirement and availability of other suitable premises.
18. It is well settled that in proceedings of this nature, what is material
is the real controversy between the parties, namely, whether the
requirement pleaded by the landlord is bona fide and whether
5
Writ Petition No. 668 of 2024, Prabhat Kishore Vs Rukmani Devi-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10486
comparative hardship justifies grant of release. Facts which have a direct
and proximate connection with these issues ought, ordinarily, to be
placed on record so that the adjudication is complete and not confined to
a truncated factual foundation. The Petitioner's attempt is to place before
the Prescribed Authority the entire pattern of subsequent dealings by the
Respondent, so that the issue of bona fide requirement can be assessed in
the correct factual setting.
19. The apprehension expressed on behalf of the Respondent that
allowing the amendment would convert the release proceedings into a
title or declaratory dispute does not appear to be well founded. The
Petitioner is not seeking, in these proceedings, any declaration of title or
adjudication on the validity of particular sale deeds. The proposed
pleadings only bring those transactions to the notice of the Prescribed
Authority as facts having a bearing on the genuineness of the pleaded
need. The Prescribed Authority will remain confined to the limited
enquiry permissible under the Rent Act and will not be required to return
any final finding on questions of title or validity of documents.
20. As regards the stage of the proceedings, the amendment has been
sought after the conclusion of the Respondent's evidence and before the
Petitioner has entered the witness box. While it would undoubtedly have
been preferable for the Petitioner to seek the amendment earlier, the
delay by itself is not sufficient to reject the amendment, particularly
when the nature of the proposed pleas is such that any prejudice to the
Respondent can be adequately met by affording her an opportunity to
file an additional reply and, if necessary, to lead further evidence.
21. The impugned order partly allows the amendment, but only to the
limited extent of permitting a reference to the institution of a civil suit.
At the same time, it declines the proposed paragraphs that contain the
6
Writ Petition No. 668 of 2024, Prabhat Kishore Vs Rukmani Devi-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10486
detailed factual foundation explaining why the subsequent transactions
are asserted to be relevant to the Respondent's claimed requirement. This
has the effect of allowing a bare reference to the pendency of a suit while
excluding the substance of the defence that flows from the pleaded
transactions. Such a selective approach does not appear to be consistent
with the object of deciding the real controversy between the parties.
22. The learned Prescribed Authority has not recorded any finding that
the amendment is mala fide, that it will change the nature of the
proceedings, or that it will cause such prejudice to the Respondent as
cannot be compensated in terms of costs and appropriate procedural
safeguards. The rejection is essentially premised on an assumption that
the Petitioner can work out his remedies elsewhere. In my considered
view, once it is accepted that the facts sought to be introduced are
germane to the question of bona fide requirement, they ought to be
permitted to be pleaded in the very proceedings where that question falls
for determination.
23. This Court is conscious that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is
supervisory in nature and is to be exercised with circumspection.
However, where the subordinate court declines to permit an amendment
which is directly connected with the core issue in dispute, and thereby
restricts its own ability to adjudicate the controversy on a full and fair
factual foundation, such refusal amounts to a jurisdictional error. In the
facts of the present case, interference is warranted to ensure that the
learned Prescribed Authority is in a position to consider the entire
defence of the Petitioner while deciding the release application.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition deserves to
be allowed.
Writ Petition No. 668 of 2024, Prabhat Kishore Vs Rukmani Devi-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10486
The impugned order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division) and Prescribed Authority, Rishikesh, District
Dehradun, in P.A. Case No. 05 of 2020, is set aside to the extent it
rejects the Petitioner's prayer for amendment by way of proposed
paragraphs 52A, 52B and 52C of the written statement.
The amendment application filed by the Petitioner shall stand
allowed in its entirety. The Petitioner shall carry out the amendment in
the written statement within such period as may be fixed by the learned
Prescribed Authority, and shall file an amended written statement
accordingly.
It shall be open to the Respondent, upon service of the amended
written statement, to file an additional reply within a reasonable time to
be fixed by the learned Prescribed Authority and, if so advised, to move
an application seeking leave to adduce such further evidence as may be
necessary to meet the amended pleadings. Any such application shall be
considered and decided on its own merits in accordance with law.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
25.11.2025
Arti Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH
ARTI SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b6
6890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133
C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH
Date: 2025.11.25 16:26:54 +05'30'
Writ Petition No. 668 of 2024, Prabhat Kishore Vs Rukmani Devi-
Ashish Naithani J.
