Court No. - 27 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23274 of 2008 Petitioner :- A.K. Tandon Respondent :- S.P. Rastogi & Others Petitioner Counsel :- K.K. Arora Respondent Counsel :- Rajesh Gupta Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
This case has come up before me as an application for modification of my
interim order dated 28.8.2008 has been filed. However, learned counsel for
both the parties state that inspite of wasting time on the modification
application the entire writ petition may be heard on merit. Accordingly,
learned counsel for both the parties have been heard on the merit of the writ
petition.
Landlords-respondents initiated release proceedings against the tenant-
petitioner on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The release
application was dismissed on 16.8.2003 by Prescribed authority/JSCC,
Meerut (P.A. case no.56 of 1999). Against the said order landlords-
respondents have filed misc. appeal no.150 of 2003 which at the relevant time
was pending before Additional District Judge, Court No.10, Meerut. In the
appeal petitioner tenant (who is respondent therein) filed an affidavit as
additional evidence stating therein two accommodations suitable for the
purposes for which release was sought had come in the possession of the
landlords in vacant state during pendency of appeal. Affidavit in rebuttal was
filed by the landlords. Thereafter tenant-petitioner filed an application before
the appellate court seeking amendment in the written statement to incorporate
the said plea. Through order dated 23.4.2008 appellate court rejected the
amendment application on the ground that said facts had already been stated
by the petitioner through affidavit filed in appeal which had formally been
taken on record. Said order has been challenged through this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner states that the amendment
application was filed by way of abundant precaution.
Firstly, strict principles of pleadings as provided under Order 6 to 8 of C.P.C.
do not apply to release proceedings under Section 21 of the Act. Secondly,
learned counsel for landlords-respondents categorically states that no such
technical plea would ever be raised by the landlords either before the
appellate court or in writ petition which may subsequently be filed by the
loosing party. In view of this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to
appellate court to decide the appeal very expeditiously. It is further directed
that the averments made by the tenant-petitioner and landlord respondent
through affidavit and counter affidavit filed in the appeal shall be considered
by the lower appellate court and in case lower appellate court finds that the
assertions are correct then their impact upon the need of the landlord should
also be considered. Learned counsel for the landlords-respondents has himself
stated that the technical plea of absence of pleading in that regard will not be
taken by the landlord. It is also ordered accordingly. It is further directed that
lower appellate court shall not grant any un-necessary adjournment to any of
the parties. If the Appellate court is inclined to grant any adjournment in any
form to any of the parties, then it shall be on very heavy cost which shall not
be less than Rs.500/- per adjournment. All efforts must be made to decide the
appeal within six months. Both the parties are directed to appear before the
appellate court alongwith certified copy of this judgment on 28.1.2010.
Writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.1.2010
RS