OM PRAKASH, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner, who is a tenant of a portion of the House No. 289/294-A, Moti Nagar, Lucknow of the opposite party No. 2, seeks that the orders dated 30th May, 1986, confirming the Commissioner's report on the order dated 31th July, 1986 rejecting the application of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 30th May, 1986, and the order dated 26th August, 1986 rejecting the amendment of the petitioner be quashed.
(2.) THE proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 were pending before the Prescribed Authority in respect of the above premises and during those proceedings both the parties made applications for the appointment of the Commissioner. Whereas the petitioner made an application that full details of the portion of the house which was in occupation of the landlady in Indra Nagar locality be given by the Commissioner, the opposite party No. 2 made an application that the petitioner had constructed a new house at para and full details of that house be given in the report by the Commissioner. The Commissioner was appointed by the Prescribed Authority who submitted the report giving details of the house at para and of the portion of the house which was occupied by the opposite party No. 2 as a tenant at Indra Nagar. The said report was confirmed by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 30th May, 1986. Before confirming the said report, several opportunities were given to the petitioner, but no objection was filed by him. No objection having been filed by the petitioner the report of the Commissioner was confirmed. Thereafter an application dated 31st July, 1986 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) was made by the petitioner that the order dated 30th May, 1986, be recalled and the objections of the opposite party against the Commissioner's report be allowed. The objections, which the petitioner sought to file against Commissioner's report, are as per Annexure 5 to the writ petition, which is dated 20th May, 1986. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length. The contention of the petitioner is that the Commissioner's report was wrongly confirmed on 30th May, 1986, inasmuch as no opportunity was given to the petitioner to file objections against that. The application dated 30th July, 1986, was disposed of by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 31st July, 1986 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) and in that order it is clearly stated that adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner before confirming the report to file objections. On these facts, the contention of the petitioner that the Commissioner's report was confirmed without giving adequate opportunity, cannot be accepted. What the learned Counsel submits is that the dates were affixed with a very small intervals, whereas in other similar matters, long dates were fixed by the same Prescribed Authority. Even if this contention is taken to be correct, it cannot be held that the Commissioner's report was disposed of without giving opportunity. Admittedly, several dates were fixed before the confirmation of the report and, therefore it cannot be said to be a case where adequate opportunity lacked. It is also submitted for the petitioner that the Commissioner submitted his report under the pressure of the son of the District Judge of the Prescribed Authority. This argument is of little value, inasmuch as a report of the Commissioner will not be vitiated by the mere fact that the husband of the landlady is the son of the District Judge, Lucknow.
(3.) THEN , the next question is whether the amendment application dated 26th August, 1986 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) was illegally rejected ? The petitioner stated in this application that he had gone out from Lucknow and on return, he came to know that the landlady through her husband had entered into a transaction of sale of the disputed house with one Sri Sardar Kuldeep Singh, resident of Arya Nagar, Lucknow. This application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 28th August, 1986 (Annexure 8 of the writ petition) for two reasons, firstly, that Sri Ramesh Saxena, husband of the landlady, stated that the petitioner would be entitled to re-enter in the house, if that was said afterwards and, secondly, that not source of information was disclosed by the petitioner that an under hand dealing was done by the landlady to dispose of the property. It is submitted that to avoid mulitplicity of the proceedings, the amendment application should have been allowed, specially when no new cause of action arose and the nature of suit remain unchanged from the proposed amendment. The Prescribed Authority, in my opinion, was fully justified in rejecting the amendment application for the reason that no source of information was disclosed by the petitioner. The petitioner should have stated all the material facts in the affidavit, accompanying the amendment application. So that if that was found to be incorrect or false, then the liability could be fastened on him. It was not stated as to where from, how, when and from whom the information was received by the landlady. In the absence of these material facts, the amendment application was liable to rejected. The information purportedly received by the petitioner was nothing but some hearsay on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, the Prescribed Authority was fully justified in rejecting the amendment application. No illegality seems to have arisen out of the rejection of the application.;