Palok Basn, J. - (1.) -This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-landlady against an order dated 12-1-1987 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Allahabad whereby an amendment application filed by the tenant-opposite party no. 1 was allowed.
(2.) THE facts lie in a narrow compass and may be stated briefly so as to appreciate the points requiring decision in this petition. There is a house bearing no. 104 Bai ka Bagh, Allahabad. Admittedly, the petitioner was a tenant in the first floor of the said house while the opposite party no. 1 was a tenant in the ground floor. According to the petitioner's case, the entire house was purchased by her from one Sri Asit Kumar Mukerji, the erstwhile landlord, by a registered sale deed on 19-4-1983 for a sum of Rs. 45,000/-. A notice disclosing the said purchase and also intimating that the said house is needed for the personal use and occupation of the petitioner was issued on behalf of her to the opposite party no. 1 on 16-12-1983 which was replied by him on 31-12-1983. The tenant made an application under section 30 (1) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for depositing the rent in the court. Ultimately on 14-3-1986 the petitioner filed an application under section 21 of the Act for release of the house on various grounds showing personal need and necessity which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by his judgment and order dated 23-9-1986. The tenant preferred an appeal no. 440 of 1986 against the order of the prescribed authority which is still pending disposal. The said appeal was dismissed exparte on 4-11-86 a restoration application by the tenant was allowed in due course and the appeal was fixed for hearing on 1-1-1987 before the First Additional District Judge, Allahabad, on which date an amendment application was moved by the tenant. Objections were filed by the petitioner on 5-1-1987 and arguments in part were heard on 9-1-1987. The tenant had sought time till 9-1-1987 for filing rejoinder affidavit but the same was not done. The court had informed the parties that the Gase will be listed on 13-1-1987 when orders will be delivered. The petitioner, however, says that the judgment and order was already passed on 12-1-1987, i. e. a day before the date fixed whereby the amendment application of the tenant was allowed. Sufficient material has not been brought on record to indicate that even though 13-1-1987 was fixed as the date of the judgment it was pronounced by the First Additional District Judge on 12-1-1987. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner also did not lay much emphasis on the said point. Therefore, this Court chooses to proceed on the basis that the hearing and delivery of orders in the amendment application have been done in accordance with law and thus the respective contentions on merits may now be taken up.
(3.) IT will be relevant to make a reference to the reason for making the amendment sought to be incorporated in the written statement filed by the tenant opposite party before the Prescribed Authority. A look at paragraph 1 and 2 pools out the reasons for making the amendment application which may be usefully quoted here. Paragraph 1. "That at the preparation of case for arguments, it becomes known that the necessary plea of non joinder of necessary party escaped from being taken accidently." Paragraph 2. "That since the matter goes to the root and invalidates the application for release it is necessary to carry out the necessary amendment in the W. S. Some clauses of paragraph 10 of the application may also be quoted usefully which contains the amendments which are important from the tenants' point of view : "(c) After paragraph no. 41, following paragraphs may be allowed to be written. 41-A. That the building in question was taken on rent from late Smt. S. Mukerjee and Sri Harihar Mukerjee in the year 1959. Both of aforesaid persons died more than 10 years ago leaving three sons and six daughters being the heirs, become co-owners and co-landlords of the building in question. " 41-B. That since other heirs of the owners landlord were living outstation Sri Asit Kumar Mukerjee used to realise rent for and on behalf of entire body of landlords. " 41-C. That the alleged sale deed dated 18-4-1963 having been executed by Sri Asit Kumar Mukerjee, it is good and transfers only the share and interest of Sri Asit Kumar Mukerjee and the present applicant and landlady is the transferee of the share of Asit Kumar Mukerjee only. The other co owners and co landlords i. e. the other heirs of Smt. S. Mukerjee and Harihar Mukerjee continues to be as such. They also left ......... as sons and ......... as daughters and heirs. " 41-D. Not relevant hence not quoted. 41-F.......The application for release is liable to be rejected on the grounds mentioned above and for want of notice as required by proviso to section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972. " Even in the affidavit which was filed in support of the said amendment application by the tenant (vide Annexure 12 to the writ petition) no other reason has been stated except that due to non joinder of other heirs of Late Harihar Mukerjee the release application was barred by rule 15 (2) of the Rules framed under the Act.;