M. P. Singh, J. - (1.) -
(2.) THE petitioners are tenants of residential accommodation situated in Vrindaban which is known as 'Anand Bhavan' Ath Khambha, Vrindaban, District Mathura. The landlords filed an application under section 21 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Prescribed Authority, Mathura, for release of the accommodation on the ground that Smt. Kamlawati, respondent No. 4, mother of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, was an old lady. She was of religious bent of mind and wanted to shift from Amritsar to Vrindaban to pass her last days of life there. The petitioners contested the said application on the ground that Smt. Kamlawati was staying with her sons at Amritsar who are cloth merchants and doing their business there and she has no intention to come to Mathura. It is only a device to get the accommodation released. The Prescribed Authority by an order dated 29-3-1984 rejected the application of the landlords by holding that the need of respondent No. 4 was neither genuine nor bonafide. Against this order of the Prescribed Authority dated 29-3-1984 the landlords filed an appeal before the District Judge, Mathura. During pendency of the appeal an application for amendment of the application under section 21 of the Act was filed on the ground that on account of terrorists activities in Punjab they want to shift to Mathura and permanently reside in the house in dispute. The petitioners filed an objection to the said application for amendment. After hearing counsel for the parties the District Judge allowed the amendment application by an order dated 3-2-1987 subject to payment of Rs. 100/- as costs which was accepted by the petitioner's counsel appearing in the court below. After the amendment was allowed the respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit in support of his evidence whose copy has been filed as Annexure V to the counter affidavit.
(3.) DURING the course of hearing before me a copy of the order sheet dated 18-8-1987 was produced by the counsel for the respondent which was not disputed by the counsel for the petitioners as it was a matter of record The said order sheet dated 18-8-1987 is being reproduced below :- 18-8-1987 Case called out. Counsels for the parties are present. 51-C-Application by respondents for filing their affidavits alleging that after the amendment was made by the appellants in his application under section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, he was given opportunity to file counter affidavits but he filed writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court which was admitted and therefore the respondent was under the impression that these affidavits could be filed subsequently. The application is opposed. The record shows that after the arguments 5-8-87 had been fixed for judgment. Since my predecessor had handed over the charge, a date for further arguments was fixed. I do not think there was any occasion for the respondents to be under the impression that the affidavits could be filed even after the judgment was delivered. However in the interest of justice I grant the application upon payment of Rs. 40/- as costs. Rejoinder affidavit or affidavits to be filed within 7 days. Arguments in appeal on 28-8-1987. It is the oldest such appeal on file. Counsel of the parties must come prepared for arguments." A perusal of the order sheet indicates that after the amendment was allowed the parties were given full opportunity to lead evidence and an opportunity was given for hearing. Aggrieved against the said order allowing the amendment of the application under section 21 of the Act, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and submitted (i) the amendment sought could not have been allowed as it changed nature of the case and (ii) the subsequent events could not have been taken into consideration. This argument is mis-conceived. On this question the law is clear that in such cases the court can take into consideration the subsequent events which came into existence after filing of the application under section 21 of the Act.;