Court No. - 19 Case :- RENT CONTROL No. - 10 of 2010 Petitioner :- Bachchan Lal Pandey Respondent :- District Judge Unnao And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- A.K.Srivastava -Ii Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble S.C. Chaurasia,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and
perused the record.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
with the prayer that the order dated 01-12-2009 passed by the learned District
Judge, Unnao, and the order dated 08-10-2009 passed by the learned Civil
Judge(Senior Division), Unnao, Annexures Nos. 1 & 2)to the writ petition,
may be quashed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned
Prescribed Authority has rejected the petitioner’s application for amendment
illegally, without applying its judicial mind and the revisional court also did
not consider the matter properly and dismissed the revision illegally. His
contention is that the petitioner’s application for amendment ought to have
been allowed. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a
decision of Hon’ble Single Judge of this court reported in 1994(12) L.C.D.
714,Het Ram Kanodia Vs. 10th Additional District Judge, Kanpur and
Others.
From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the application under section
21 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 has been moved on behalf of the
applicant,Jallaluddin/opposite party no. 3 for release of the accommodation in
question on the ground that his need for the said accommodation is genuine
and bonafide. In the said proceedings, an application for
amendment(Annexure No. 5) has been moved on behalf of the opposite
party/petitioner for amendment in the written statement/objections to the
effect that the details about the business of the sons of the applicant may be
incorporated. He has also sought the amendment to the effect that his all three
sons are independent and none of his sons has need for the accommodation in
question. The learned Prescribed Authority, after considering the material on
record and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, rejected the
said application on the ground that the release application has been moved by
the applicant for his own need and hence, it is unnecessary to introduce in the
written statement by way of amendment that the applicant’s sons have no need
of the accommodation in question and the amendment application has been
moved with malafide intention. The revision filed against the order dated 08-
10-2009 of the Prescribed Authority has been dismissed vide order dated 01-
12-2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Unnao.
After considering the record and the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner, I am of the view that there is no manifest error of law in the
impugned orders and hence, no interference is called for in exercise of this
court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
writ petition is devoid of merit & it is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 22.1.2010
AKS