- (1.) HEARD Sri Anil Sharma, counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.P.S. Chauhan appearing for caveator respondent no. 2 and perused the record.
(2.) THIS petition is directed against order dated 27.11.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, court no. 4, Bijnor in Appeal No. 11 of 2009, by which application filed by landlord respondent no. 2 seeking amendment in the release application, has been allowed. The landlord respondent moved an application paper no. 43-Ka on 30.10.2010 at the appellate stage praying for amendment in the release application on the ground of subsequent event that an accident had taken place on 2.10.2010 during pendency of the appeal in which daughter of the landlord respondent died and his son and daughter -in-law received serious injuries who were being treated at Noida, as such looking into the age and mental condition of the landlord as well as the fact that it is not possible for him in these circumstances to do business at Kotdwar outside Najijabad and also in view of the fact that S.L.P. No. 22228 of 2008, M/s Garhwal Steel Coporation and others Vs. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, has been dismissed providing nine months time to the brother of respondent no. 2 i.e. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal for vacating the said premises where he was doing business. With these averments, paragraph no. 7-A was sought to be added in the release application in the following manner : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... It may be stated here that the Prescribed Authority has already decided release application in favour of the landlord respondent considering the question of his bonafide need and comparative hardships by judgment and order dated 29.9.2009, against which the tenant petitioner had preferred appeal no. 11 of 2009, Jogendra Singh Vs. Sunil Kumar and others and it was at that stage that application for amendment in the release application was moved.
(3.) THE appellate court by the impugned order dated 27.1.2011 has allowed the application paper no. 43-Ka on the ground that in view of changed circumstances during pendency of the appeal, the amendment deserved to be allowed as the said amendment would not change nature of the dispute. The appellate court has decided the application thus : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Order VI Rule 17 read with Rule 22-D of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. Rule 22 -E of the aforesaid Rules, is thus : "22. Power under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (section 34(1)(g)- The District Magistrate, the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Authority shall, for the purposes of holding any inquiry or hearing any appeal or revision under the Act, shall have the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit n respect of the following matters:- (a).......... (b)............. (c).............. (d) the power to allow amendment of an application, memorandum of appeal or revision. He submits that by amendment in the release application, the very nature of the application would change as earlier the father had moved the release application for his need which was allowed by the prescribed authority and now by amendment at the appellate stage, need of his son had been set up which is incorporated by the impugned order. ;