K. M. Dayal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri L. P. Naithani, appearing for the respondent.
(2.) THE present petition arises out of an order rejecting the application for amending the objection to the petition under section 21 (1) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. THE amendment sought in the objection was that the land under the property in dispute was on lease form Darbar Shri Guru Ram Raiji Maharaj, Dehradun. THE son of the tenant had entered into an agreement of lease with the aforesaid owner of the land. THEre is no allegation that the tenant's son had purchased the building standing on the land. Under the circumstances apparently the defendant's son had acquired some interest in the land over which the building in dispute stands, if his allegations were correct. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the building is still owned by the landlord and he continues to be the landlord in respect of the same. He also disputed the factum of purchase or agreement to purchase in favour of the son of the tenant. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application with an observation that probably the bonafide of the applicant are not effected nor it has any impact with the enquiries under section 21 of Act No. 31 of 1972.
(3.) RULE 22 framed under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 gives certain powers to the Prescribed Authority in matters of procedure. Some provisions of Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable to proceedings under the Act. Power to allow amendment of application etc. is prescribed by Clause (d) of RULE 22. Clause (f) of the same RULE makes Sections 151 and 152 of Code of Civil Procedure applicable. As there has been some change in the rights or status of the parties it was in the interest of justice that the objection be permitted to be amended under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The matter may be adjudicated completely and multiplicity of proceedings avoided. The Prescribed Authority failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him under Rule 22 framed under the Act.;