Back
2019 Supreme(All) 403
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD BENCH AT LUCKNOW
Irshad Ali, J.
Hanuman Prasad Mishra - Appellant
Vs.
Addl Dist Judge Court No 4 Lucknow & Ors. - Respondents
Rent Control No. 8250 of 2019
Decided On : 29-03-2019
Apoorva Tewari, Adv., Prashast Puri, Adv., S.N. Bhanu, Adv., Anurag Srivastava, Adv., Kabir Ahmad Khan, Adv.
Inconsistent statements of fact can be corrected by granting permission to make amendments in the written statement, but the second application on the same set of facts was not maintainable in law.
Headnote:
Amendment Application - Trust Deed - Act No.13 of 1972 - Section 21 - Summary: The court rejected the second amendment application seeking alteration/clarification/omission of certain facts from the written statement, holding that it was based on the same set of facts and grounds as the first application. The court emphasized that inconsistent statements of fact can be corrected by granting permission to make amendments in the written statement. However, it held that the second application on the same set of facts was not maintainable in law. The writ petition was dismissed, and the appellate court was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside an order passed in Rent Appeal No.6 of 2014. The petitioner's grandfather was a tenant, and the respondent purchased the shop in question. The respondent filed an application for release of the shop under Section 21 of Act No.13 of 1972, which was allowed by the prescribed authority. The petitioner filed various applications seeking to challenge the judgment and amend the written statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the second amendment application seeking alteration/clarification/omission of certain facts from the written statement was not maintainable in law as it was based on the same set of facts and grounds as the first application. The court directed the appellate court to decide the appeal expeditiously.
Issues: The main issue was whether the second amendment application seeking alteration/clarification/omission of certain facts from the written statement was maintainable in law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that inconsistent statements of fact can be corrected by granting permission to make amendments in the written statement. However, it emphasized that the second application on the same set of facts was not maintainable in law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the appellate court was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously.
Irshad Ali, J.
Heard Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Apoorva Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 14.03.2019 passed in Rent Appeal No.6 of 2014.
3. Brief fact of the case is that the petitioner's grand father late Sri Madan Manohar Mishra was inducted as tenant by M/S Jai Narayan Mishra Charitable and Educational Trust. The tenancy, thereafter, developed upon the father of the petitioner late Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra. The respondent No.3 purchased the shop in question from Dr. R.N. Mishra, Dr. D.N. Mishra, Lt. Col. J. Mishra and Sri V.N. Mishra, who executed the sale deed alleging themselves to be trustees of the trust. The sale deed was registered on 25.01.2000. The father of the petitioner died and the tenancy of the shop in question devolved upon the petitioner.
4. The respondent No.3 filed an application for release of the shop in question under Section 21 of the Act No.13 of 1972, which was registered as P.A. Case No.67 of 2012; Chandra Mohan Purswami Vs. Hanuman Prasad Mishra. Vide order dated 24.12.2013, P.A. Case No.67 of 2012 was allowed by the prescribed authority and the petitioner was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question within 60 days from the date of judgment.
5. The respondent No.3 filed P.A. Case No.24 of 2014 for execution of judgment dated 24.12.2013. The petitioner filed Rent Appeal No.6 of 2014 challenging the judgment dated 24.12.2013, wherein an order was passed on 17.02.2014 and the appeal was admitted and the judgment impugned in the appeal was stayed.
6. The petitioner filed an application on 21.11.2014, which was numbered as Paper No.A-28, whereby certain amendment was sought in the written statement seeking to assail the title of the respondent No.3, inter alia, on the ground that the shop in question was put in trust for the benefit of an educational institution Jai Narayan Post Graduate College and the shop could not be alienated by the trust without permission of the Director, Department of Education.
7. The amendment application Paper No.A-28 for amendment of the written statement was rejected vide order dated 29.10.2015 on the ground that the petitioner has admitted the respondent No.3 as landlord in the original written statement. The said admission could not be withdrawn by means of an amendment.
8. Rent Appeal No.6 of 2015 was dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2015 for want of prosecution. An application for restoration of the rent appeal No.6 of 2015 was filed, which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No.720 of 2015. During pendency of the restoration application, the respondent No.3 started pursuing the execution of the judgment of the prescribed authority dated 24.12.2013.
9. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.7285 (MS) of 2015 seeking expeditious disposal of the Miscellaneous Case No.720 of 2015, which was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move an application for expeditious disposal of the restoration application before the appellate Court with a direction to dispose of the application on or before 15.12.2015. The Miscellaneous Case No.720 of 2015 was allowed and the rent appeal No.6 of 2015 was restored to its original number vide order dated 10.12.2015.
10. The petitioner moved an application bearing No.C-57 for recall of the order dated 29.10.2015, which was rejected vide order dated 14.05.2018.
11. The petitioner moved another application in the rent appeal No.6 of 2014 accompanied with treasury challan seeking to deposit advance rent for the month of August, 2018 to December, 2018 as well as an application dated 13.12.2018 presenting the challan for the period January, 2019 to April, 2019.
12. On 13.12.2018, the appellate Court observed that the challan filed on 04.07.2018 had been prepared in the name of predece
