- (1.) Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.N. Tilhari, learned Counsel for the respondents. The factual matrix to the present case, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, are that the controversy in the present case relates to house situate at mohalla Railway ganj Hardoi Pergana Gopamau Tehsil and District Hardoi. The said house owned by one Sri Triyogi Narain Gupta. He moved an application for release under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act (Act No. 13 of 1972) on 9.9.2002 and the same was registered as P.A. Case No. 9 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Hardoi. In the said case, the present petitioner, who was respondent had filed a written statement on 18.11.2003. Thereafter, due to certain development which had taken place an amendment application was moved on behalf of the present petitioner under Order VI, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. on 14.5.2008 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and the same was allowed and accordingly an amendment was made in the written statement. On 26.9.2008 landlord had filed replication as a result of which an application for permission to file additional written statement alongwith the same was filed by the petitioner on 24.10.2008. On 10.12.2008, to the said application, the respondent- landlord filed an objection. By means of order dated 23.4.2009, the respondent No. 1 had rejected the application filed by the petitioner for taking the additional written statement on record hence the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order dated 23.4.2009 passed by opposite party No. 1 has submitted that as certain new facts has been stated on behalf of the respondent/landlord in the replication as such in view of the said subsequent developments it is necessary in the interest of justice that additional written statement should be taken on record so the order passed by the respondent No. 1 is illegal and liable to be set aside.
(3.) Sri R.N. Tilhari, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that no additional facts whatsoever had been taken in the replication filed by the petitioner and only the facts which had already taken in the release application earlier by the landlord are elaborated in the replication as such there is no need to file additional written statement by the tenant. In view of the said fact the order dated 23.4.2009 passed by opposite party No. 1 is perfectly valid. He further submits that the petitioner has already moved an application supported by an affidavit for recalling the order dated 23.4.2009, which is challenged in the present writ petition, before opposite party No. 1 and the same is still pending for adjudication so the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.;