- (1.) Heard Sri U.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Km. Rishu Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. The landlord filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") seeding eviction of petitioners-tenants from the shop in dispute alleging that the same is required for his personal need. The application was registered as PA Case No. 04 of 1993. The application of landlord was rejected by Prescribed Authority vide order dated 19.8.1994, where against landlord filed Rent Appeal No. 19 of 1994. The appeal was allowed by Appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.2.2001 and while setting aside the order of Prescribed Authority, release application of landlord was allowed. The petitioners-tenants filed Writ Petition No. 8700 of 2001, which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 17.5.2001 and appellate judgment dated 17.2.2001 was set aside and matter was remanded to Appellate Court to decide appeal afresh. Where after, it appears that, landlord moved an amendment application to bring a subsequent event before the Court that shop in which landlord's father was doing work of welding, was demolished by concerned authorities on 22.5.2000 in an encroachment irivt. The said application was allowed and amendment was permitted to be incorporated in the application giving time to petitioners-tenants to file additional written statement, and also their evidence in support of their objections, if any. The aforesaid amendment was permitted by Appellate Court vide its order dated 22.5.2003. The additional evidence etc. was over and the appeal then was presented for hearing. Thereafter on 18.12.2004 the petitioners-tenants moved an application intending to bring on record certain documents without explaining as to why those documents were not filed by them earlier. The Appellate Court vide order dated 6.1.2005 rejected said application on the ground that the same appears to have been filed to delay the proceedings and without explaining any reason for filing those documents at a belated stage when appeal was already fixed for hearing on several dates earlier. The Court also observed that at appellate stage also entire additional evidence etc. was over and petitioners-tenants did not explain why documents they proposed to file alongwith application dated 18.12.2004 could not have been filed earlier. Thereafter the Appellate Court proceeded to decide the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 1.3.2005.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners could not dispute that in the application dated 18.12.2004 there is no averment or explanation as to why those documents could not be adduced earlier by petitioners-tenants when additional evidence etc. was already recorded by Appellate Court. In the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order dated 6.1.2005.
(3.) So far as the order dated 22.5.2003 is concerned, it is not in dispute that respondent-landlord intended to bring on record subsequent events occurred on 22.5.2000, which could have material bearing on the matter. That being so, the order dated 22.5.2003, permitting amendment, cannot be faulted.;