- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 12th Sep tember 1995, passed by respondent No. 1, whereby he permitted respondent No. 3 file application for amendment of the pleadings and the order dated 31-10-1995, allowing the amendment application.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner is a tenant of shop situate in premises No. 16/18 Vivekanand Marg, Allahabad. Respondent No. 3 filed an ap plication under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act') on the ground that on the first and the second floor of the premises No. 16/18 Vivekanmand Marg, Allahabad Roxi Hotel is being run but the income from the hotel business is meagre. She wants to settle her son Kamlesh Narain who is an unemployed youth in the busi ness of general Merchandise in the shop in dispute. It was further alleged that the tenant has another shop bearing No. 17 on Viveka Nand Marg, Allahabad and if the petitioner is evicted, he would not suffer any hardship. This application was contested by the petitioner. He alleged that the income from hotel business of respondent No. 3 is sufficient. It was denied that he is in possession of shop No. 17 Viveka Nand Marg, Allahabad. THE parties led evidence and the Prescribed Authority, allowed the application vide the order dated 16-3-1992. Against this order the petitioner preferred Rent Control Appeal No, 132 of 1992 before the District Judge Allahabad. During the pendency of the appeal respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit stat-that the petitioner has purchased shop No. 14/16 Vivekanand Marg, Allahabad, adjacent to the shop in question in the name of his two sons, namely, Pradumn Kumar Chawla and Sushil Kumar Chawla both aged about 25 years and 19 years respectively. This affidavit was accepted by the appellate authority by order dated 23rd December, 1993. The petitioner filed writ petition No. 3564 of 1994 in this Court. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 17th May, 1994 and the petitioner was permitted to file counter-affidavit-to the affidavit filed by respondent No. 3. At the time of final hearing an objection was taken that there was no plead ing giving the material facts and the affidavits filed in the case cannot be relied upon. The Court considered the circumstances of the case and directed respondent No. 3 to file application for amendment of the application by order dated 12-9-1995. The petitioner filed objection to the said application and on 31-10-1995 the respondent No. 1 has allowed the application for amendment of the application. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Court had no jurisdiction to direct any party to make application for amendment and secondly, the Court acted illegally in allowing the application filed for amendment of the pleadings filed by respondent No. 3.
(3.) THE application was filed on the ground that respondent No. 3 is running Roxi Hotel in premises No. 18, Viveka Nand Marg, Allahabad. This premises was taken on rent by respondent No. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings the business of Roxi Hotel was closed as the landlord of respondent No. 3 evicted her from that premises in proceedings under Section 21 of the Act. Respondent No. 3 had filed an affidavit before the appellate authority in timating that the petitioner has purchased adjacent shop No. 14/16, Viveka Nand Marg, Allahabad, during the pendency of the appeal. This affidavit was accepted by respondent No. 1. The petitioner filed writ petition against the said order and the writ petition has been dismissed. The amendment application was filed basically to add two facts firstly, the' respondent No. 3 was evicted from the premises in which she was carrying on hotel business in the name of Roxi Hotel and secondly, the petitioner has purchased building No. 14/16, Vivekanand Marg, Allahabad, in the name of his two sons, namely, Pradumn Kumar and Sushil Kumar aged about 25 years and 19 years respectively. The petitioner filed objection to this application which was allowed by respondent No. 1 on 31-10-1995.;