- (1.) THIS is a tenant s writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the judgment of the fifth Additional District Judge, Kanpur, dated 6-1-1976.
(2.) THE premises in dispute belongs to respondent No. 1. An application under S. 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was filed by respondent 1 for release of the house in possession of the petitioner on the ground that the same was in a dilapidated condition and the landlord required it for reconstruction after demolition. The tenant resisted the application and denied that the building was in a dilapidated condition. The application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the appeal preferred by the tenant was also dismissed. Against the aforesaid order, the present writ petition was filed. It, however, appears that in the appeal the tenant had filed an application for amendment of the written statement. The application was allowed, and the following paragraph was permitted to be added as para 14-A in the written statement: " 14-A. That the premises was let out and is being used for the purposes of manufacture and processing and the opposite party is running a flour mill and a cotton ginning machine in the said premises and as such the accommodation in question is exempted from the operation of the Act under S. (2) (d) of the Act."
(3.) THE submission made by the learned counsel for the tenant was that although the court below permitted the above amendment in the written statement but gave no decision on the said controversy. Accordingly, as no finding was recorded on the amendment, the judgment of the court below was vitiated.;