Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. None is present on behalf of the respondents. Notice was issued to the respondent by registered post. Office has reported that neither undelivered cover nor AD has been returned back. Therefore, service of notice is deemed sufficient on the respondent No. 2. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 19th of July, 2002 passed by the Court below in Rent Control Appeal No. 8 of 2001 wherein the Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner who is landlord to incorporate certain paragraphs in the release application. It appears that an application for release under section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the petitioner against respondents for release of shop on the ground that the said shop is bona fide required by the landlord to establish his son Jitendra. It was stated that his son is unemployed and unengaged and he is not keeping good health. He is not physically fit to carry on hard physical work. The need set up was to establish him in some business to earn the livelihood. The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that an affidavit to the above effect was filed even before the Prescribed Authority. Since there was some deficiency in the averments made in the release application, the petitioner was advised to file amendment application before the Appellate Court.
(2.) I have gone through the amendment application as well as the order passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the release application and the impugned order. It is clear that the release was sought for bona fide need of his son Jitendra. By way of amendment the petitioner wants to incorporate only certain facts while are supporting to the main case set up in the application. By way of amendment the petitioner has sought to incorporate that his son Jitendra has no source of income and he has to settle him in some business and the need of the landlord is bona fide need. I see no good ground to reject the said amendment application. It may be remembered here that technical rules or pleadings are not applicable in those proceedings. These proceedings under section 21 are decided on the basis of evidence filed by the parties. The provisions of pleadings as contained in the Code of Civil Procedure strictly speaking are not applicable. The Court below has taken a very narrow view of the matter while rejecting the amendment application. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 19th of July, 2002 cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed. The amendment application 15 -Ka filed by the petitioner in Rent Control Appeal No. 8 of 2001 stands allowed. However, the respondent tenant shall have a right to file affidavit in rebuttal within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Court below may further extend time, if cause shown is sufficient, to a reasonable extent. Since the matter is old one and pending since long before the Court below, it is desirable that the Court below may hear and decide the appeal itself expeditiously within a period of one year from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.;