Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -An application under Section 16 (1) (b) and Section 12 (4) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 against the petitioner and others on the ground that the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and the landlord of the Building No. 1088, Civil Lines, Lalitpur, was let out to Ram Nath and Company on 10.2.1968. Late Ram Kumar Singh was Manager in the Ram Nath Company aforesaid. And was living in it as in that capacity. The company was dissolved and the disputed premises was vacated.
(2.) RAM Kumar Singh, the erstwhile Manager of the company, moved an application for allotment of the premises in his favour which was registered as Case No. 108 of 1979. The application of the manager was rejected. Thereafter, the landlord filed a release application on the ground that the house in dispute was bona fide required to them,. The objections against the release application was filed by the petitioner claiming herself the tenancy devolved upon her as she is the wife of late Arun Kumar Singh of the dissolved company. It appears that an amendment application was filed by her on 5.5.2007 praying for following amendments : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMItED]...
(3.) OBJECTIONS were filed by the landlord inter alia that the suit is pending for last 8 years and they have already given their evidence in this case about 10 months prior that the amendment will change the nature of the suit. It was also averred in the objections by the landlord to the amendment application that the documents have already been exhibited and have been proved by documentary evidence, as such, the amendment application is not maintainable. The petitioner has replied to the aforesaid objection inter alia that the nature of the suit will not be changed and that amendments are necessary. The Court by impugned order dated 29.6.2007 came to the conclusion that Ram Kumar Singh was given the accommodation in dispute as a Manager and the company has been dissolved in the year 1973. Thereafter, Sri Ram Kumar Singh, son of Pahalwan Singh who was the Manager in the company, made efforts to get the accommodation allotted in his favour which was rejected. He was never a tenant of the accommodation in dispute but was occupying the premises till the company existed as he was the manager hence the tenancy could not devolve upon the petitioner who claims herself to be the wife of the son of the erstwhile Manager Ram Kumar Singh.;