- (1.) Heard Counsel for petitioner and perused the record. This petition has been filed by Munna Lal Sahu son of late Sadho Ram, resident of 271/92, Bahadurganj, Allahabad, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 16.4.2010 as well as order dated 16.8.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Allahabad appended as Annexure Nos. 4 and 6 to this petition. By order dated 16.4.2010, the Court has decided application (paper No. 33-G) filed on behalf of Salikram under Rule 22-D of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, inter alia that Salikram has since died and his second son Durgesh Kumar, who has obtained degree of B.H.M.S., has become eligible for medical practice, hence requirement of the shop in dispute for by him may also be considered. The application 33-G was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that amendment sought is against the law as by the amendment, nature of the suit would change and that Durgesh Kumar has acquired a Farzi degree of B.H.M.S., hence he does not required the shop in dispute and for these reasons, the application is liable to be rejected.
(2.) After hearing the parties, the Appellate Court has record a finding that application under section 21(1)(a) was filed by the landlord for his bona fide need and as such it is to be considered in the light as to whether need of the landlord is bona fide or not and whether he would suffer more hardships than the tenant or not. The Court further held that it cannot go into merits of the question in the application as to whether degree obtained by son of the landlord is Farzi or not. The Court further held that by inserting paragraph 3-A, nature of the application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13/1972 would not change and accordingly the Court has allowed the same directing the landlord to Incorporate the amendment in the memo of appeal fixing 5.5.2010 for hearing.
(3.) Perusal of the plaint filed by the landlord appended as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, shows that case of the landlord was that he has three adult sons- Anand Kumar, Durgesh Kumar and Vimlesh Kumar but they have not been settled; that landlord is earning livelihood for the family from a tea stall; that his children are eligible bachelors for marriage whose marriage could not be performed as they have not settled in any livelihood; that tenant is having his own house No. 1/7, Preetam Nagar, P.S. Dhoomanganj, Allahabad consisting of three rooms, Courtyard, Varandah, Kitchen, latrine and bathroom, in which he and his children are also running a "Parchoon shop", and therefore he cannot remain in possession of the shop in dispute under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which is required by the landlord for his bona fide need and he will suffer greater comparative hardships than the tenant-petitioner.;