- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Head learned Coun sel for the parties and also perused the record.
(2.) IN the case, counter and rejoinder-affidavit have already been filed. The case is ripe for hearing, therefore, as desired by learned Counsel for the parties, I have heard this petition and the same is being disposed of finally by means of this judgment. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21st April, 1997 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement/objection filed in the proceedings under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the 'act', was rejected by the District Judge, Haridwar at the appellate stage. It appears that the Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act for release of the shop in dispute on the ground that he wanted the shop for settling his son in business; that his need was bona fide and genuine and the plea of comparative hardship was also taken. Petitioner filed written statement admitting that the Respondent No. 2 was the landlord of the building in question but denied the rest of the allegations made in the application. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority, after going through the material on the record, recorded findings on the questions of need and comparative hardship in favour of Respondent No. 2 and allowed the application by its judg ment and order dated 26th March, 1996. Challenging the validity of the said order, petitioner filed an appeal before the Court below. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written state ment/objection. The application filed by the petitioner was objected to and op posed by Respondent No. 2. The Appel late Authority, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, came to the con clusion that the application filed by the petitioner was not a bona fide application, the same was filed just to delay the disposal of appeal and dismissed the same by its judgment and order dated21st April, 1997, hence the present petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Appellate Authority has acted illegally in dismissing the amendment application. According to him, the amendment sought by the petitioner was necessary for resolving the controversy involved in the case, the same, therefore, should have been allowed. On the other hand, Mr. VK. S. Chowdhary, Senior Advocate, vehemently urged that the application filed by the petitioner was wholly mala fide, the same was filed with a view to delay the disposal of the case. It was contended that the petitioner clearly and unequivocally admitted before the Prescribed Authority that the Respondent No. 2 was the landlord of the building in question and that petitioner has been paying the rent of the same to him there fore, there was no justification for him at the appellate stage to contend that some other persons were also the co-landlords. It was also urged that the amendment sought by the petitioner in the written statement/objection was not necessary for resolving the controversy involved in the case. The petitioner wanted to resile from the admission which was made by him before the Prescribed Authority. I have considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner.;