- (1.) The tenant has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 14th October, 2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which the application filed by him for incorporating amendments in the written statement has been rejected. The landlord had filed release application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 with the allegation that she and her daughter had training of running boutique business and so they desire to do boutique business and to open a showroom with the husband of the petitioner who is not doing any job. The accommodation under the tenancy of the opposite party was, therefore, needed for setting up this business. In this connection, paras 1 and 2 and boundaries of the tenanted accommodation mentioned in the application filed by landlord are quoted below: (1) That the petitioner is the owner and landlady of House No. 87/168 Acharya Nagar, P.S. Raipurwa, Kanpur Nagar. (2) That the opposite party is the tenant in respect of the entire premises No. 87/168 Acharya Nagar, P.S. Raipurwa, Kanpur Nagar at a monthly rental of Rs. 1562.50 paisa. ....................................... Boundaries of the accommodation sought to be released i.e., entire House No. No. 87/168 Acharya Nagar, P.S. Raipurwa, Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) A written statement was filed by the tenant with the following averments: (1) That the contents of para 1 of the petition is admitted. (2) That the contents of para 2 of the petition as alleged is admitted. ....... (10) That in fact the answering opposite party is carrying on Ice Factory in the premises in question and Ice Factory requires minimum 500 Square Yards for installation a plant process for manufacturing Ice and used for other purposes carrying on the said business..............
(3.) Subsequently, an amendment application was moved by the tenant with the following averments: In the above noted case, the applicant is the opposite party tenant. The petition has been filed against the opposite party by the petitioner under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petition is not maintainable as the answering opposite party is the tenant of an open land, The petitioner has also not given details of the tenanted accommodation of the opposite party in para 2 as such following amendment is essential to be incorporated in the case/W.S. for just and proper decision. The said fact has not been written in the written statement due to bona fide mistake earlier but the said fact shall be helpful to this Hon'ble Court for deciding the case. This amendment is also not going to change the nature of the case. PRAYER It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order to amend the written statement in the following manner: (a) That at page 1 in para 2 after the word "admitted" "the opposite party is the tenant consisting of a portion of open land not the constructed area. The open land not covered under the definition of the building given under section 3(1) of the Act of 1972 and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed as the suit against the answering defendant for eviction of open land, Civil Court has only jurisdiction" be added and amended.;