- (1.) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 4.2.2012 passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby the application of the petitioner for amendment in the written statement has been rejected. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
(2.) An application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "Act") was filed by the landlord-respondent No. 1 against the petitioner for release of the disputed shop. The petitioner in his written statement denied and disputed the contention raised by the landlord. The record of the case shows that a last opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce his evidence but instead of filing evidence filed an application for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner for the inspection of the premises and also filed an application under Order XII, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. However, both the said applications were rejected by the Courts below. Subsequently, yet another application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. was filed for amendment of his written statement, inter alia, stating therein that after the filing of the written statement it came into knowledge of the petitioner that in the quinquennial assessment list issued by the Kanpur Nagar Nigam of the disputed premises, four shops have been shown in the disputed premises out of which three are in possession of the petitioner. It was further submitted that the municipal record of the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur does not contain the name of the plaintiff; the release application has been filed by concealing the material facts which necessitated the filing of the amendment application.
(3.) The landlord-respondent No. 1 filed his objection and stated that the assessment list of the disputed premises has no relevancy since it relates to year 1992 and was prepared around 19 years back. It was further stated that half of the portion of the disputed premises fell into the share of his brother late Bhavani Shanker Agnihotri who in turn sold it to one Kuldeep Singh Bhatia, and the said house was renumbered as 54A. It was further stated that mutation order has been passed in favour of the respondent No. 1 mutating the name of the respondent No. 1 in respect of the premises in dispute in the Kanpur Nagar Nigam record. It was further stated that there is only one shop in the disputed premises occupied by the petitioner. It was further submitted that the amendment application is only a device to delay the disposal of the case. A last opportunity was granted to the petitioner by the Court below to adduce evidence but till date no evidence in his support has been adduced by petitioner. The Court below after considering the material available on record by order 4.2.2012 dismissed the amendment application. Hence, the present writ petition.;