Ram Nath Sharma vs Phool Chandra

Devendra Pratap Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This petition is directed against an order dated Ist of August 2009 by which application no.97ka filed by the petitioner tenant in the pending release application has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority.

It appears that the respondent landlord filed a release application under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (herein after referred to as the ''Act'') for release of the disputed shop situated in Qasba Bindki district Fatehpur claiming to be an Advocate and seeking to establish his chamber in the disputed shop. The petitioner contested the application with the allegation that an adjoining shop which was also in the tenancy of the petitioner was vacated in pursuance of the compromise reached in Original Suit No. 3 of 1983 (Ram Nath Sharma vs. Phool Chand) and possession thereof was handed over to him which in fact was for establishing his chamber. After the parties had led their evidence and the matter was fixed for judgment, the respondent landlord made an application to bring on record certain documents and despite objections it was allowed, where after the petitioner also moved an application for amending the written statement and for filing evidence in rebuttal. The trial court rejected the application no.97ka for amending the written statement on the ground that the pleadings with respect to the adjacent shop already vacated is on record and the petitioner can prove that the said shop has been utilised for other purposes.

It is evident from the record that there is a pleading in the written statement that the respondent landlord after getting the possession of the adjacent shop from the petitioner instead of establishing his lawyer''s chamber has allegedly converted into a shop dealing in electronics. The trial court was justified in rejecting the amendment application because further proof of the nature of usage of the adjacent shop is a matter of evidence and the trial court would be bound to consider the evidence as to how the adjacent shop is being used despite the fact that the need was for a chamber.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is dismissed at this stage.