- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. The petitioner-tenant aggrieved by the order passed by the prescribed authority under the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', dated 18th May, 2005, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure '4' to the writ petition.
(2.) THE brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner, during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act before the prescribed authority after the case was fixed for final hearing, has filed an application seeking amendment in his written statement. This application of the petitioner has been rejected by the prescribed authority by the order impugned in the present writ petition, thus this writ petition. The prescribed authority while rejecting the aforesaid application of the petitioner 41-C has held that after the final hearing has commenced, an application has been filed seeking amendment in the written statement filed by the petitioner-tenant. In rebuttal, the respondent-landlord filed an objection to the aforesaid amendment application filed by the petitioner-tenant to the effect that this application is after thought and is in fact filed to prolong and delay the disposal of the release application. Having gone through the findings recorded by the prescribed authority that apart from the aforesaid two facts that the application is after thought and has been filed only to prolong and delay the disposal of the release application, the application is also barred by the provisions of Order VI, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in the year 2002 and also in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case reported in 2004 (2) JCLR 107 (All) : 2004 (2) ARC 254, Ashok Chand Srivastava v. Ashish Kumar & Ors. , and also in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case reported in 2004 (1) JCLR 412 (All) : 2004 (54) ALR 511, Rais Ahmad v. Additional District Judge & Ors. , the order passed by the prescribed authority do not deserve any interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant relied upon a decision reported in 1984 (2) ARC 296, Smt. Vidya Devi Bhatnagar v. III Additional District Judge, Moradabad & Ors.
(3.) I have given my considered thoughts to the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and I found that the order passed by the prescribed authority impugned in the present writ petition does not suffer from any error, much less error apparent on the face of record, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Lastly it has been contended on behalf of petitioner-tenant that the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act is of the year 2003 and has not been disposed of as yet even after the date of commencement of hearing, may now be directed to be decided expeditiously. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice, I direct the prescribed authority to dispose of the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, if not already disposed off, expeditiously.;