Deepak Kumar vs Narendra Kumar Dikshit

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Petitioner is tenant in respect of a shop, which belongs to respondent. Respondent moved an application for release of the said shop under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

Learned Prescribed Authority allowed the said application vide judgment dated 17.03.2023 and directed the petitioner to hand over possession of the shop to the landlord within 30 days. Petitioner challenged the judgment rendered by Prescribed Authority by filing an appeal. Before the Appellate Court, he moved an application seeking leave to amend his written statement and grounds of appeal. The said application was rejected by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 14.01.2025, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

I n his amendment application, petitioner had contended that the shop in question was constructed in the year 2013, therefore, the application for release made by the landlord is not maintainable in view of second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the aforesaid Act. Second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 2 provides that where construction of a building is completed on or after 26.04.1985, such building shall be exempted from application of the aforesaid Act except the provisions mentioned in subsection (2) of Section 2 of the Act.

Learned Appellate Court rejected the amendment application by holding that admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of amendment. Learned Appellate Court took note of the averment made by the petitioner in para no. 22 of his written statement filed before the Prescribed Authority, where he had stated that his grandfather and father were doing business from the same shop. Learned Appellate Court also took not of the Tax Assessment Register of Nagar Nigam, Haridwar, which reveals that the shop was in existence since 1974.

Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of this Court to para 36 of the written statement filed by petitioner before the Prescribed Authority, which was added by an amendment, where petitioner has pleaded that his grandfather was a tenant in respect of the shop in question on a annual rent of Rs. 250/- and after death of his grandfather, petitioner’s father continued as tenant, and after death of petitioner’s father, petitioner is continuing as tenant.

In view of the admission made by the petitioner in his written statement that it was an old tenancy since the time of his grandfather, the stand taken by the petitioner that shop in question was constructed only in the year 2013, for claiming benefit of the statutory protection could not have been accepted. Thus, learned Appellate Court was right in observing that admission made in pleading cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of amendment.

Thus, there is no scope for interference with the order dated 14.01.2025 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 31 of 2023. The writ petition, thus, fails and is dismissed.