Amendments to pleadings in eviction proceedings should be allowed liberally when they pertain to the core issue of bona fide requirement and availability of alternate accommodations.

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The Petitioner is a tenant-turned-property-transferee of premises situate at Rama Market, Haridwar Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. Originally, the premises were the subject of P.A. Case No. 01 of 2013, instituted by the Respondent under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 seeking release for the alleged bona fide requirement of her grandson. During the pendency of those proceedings, the parties entered into a written compromise dated 22.04.2013, duly verified before the Prescribed Authority. Under the said compromise, it was mutually agreed that the ownership and possession of the tenanted premises bearing No. 435, Rama Market would vest in the Petitioner, whereas the Respondent would acquire the terrace portions of properties bearing Nos. 433 and 434 and the staircase. The compromise further recorded that the parties would execute the consequential sale deeds.

2. In view of the said compromise, the release application was disposed of on 23.04.2013 by the learned Prescribed Authority on agreed terms. It is further case of the Petitioner that despite repeated requests, the Respondent did not execute sale deeds in terms of the compromise, but instead, filed a fresh release application being P.A. Case No. 05 of 2020, again invoking Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, alleging bona fide need in respect of the same premises, without disclosing that the ownership had already stood transferred under the compromise.

3. In the said P.A. Case No. 05 of 2020, the Petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was rejected on 22.11.2020, leading to Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2539 of 2021, which was disposed of by this Court on 05.07.2023, holding that although Order VII Rule 11 CPC applies to proceedings under the Act, the defence must ordinarily be raised in objections.

4. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed written objections and subsequently moved an amendment application, seeking to introduce specific pleadings relating to (i) the compromise and mutual transfer of ownership, (ii) various sale deeds executed by the Respondent divesting her of ownership in adjoining shops, and (iii) pendency of Suit No. 81 of 2023 arising out of the same compromise. The Respondent filed objections thereto.

5. Vide order dated 22.02.2024, the learned Prescribed Authority partly allowed the amendment, to the limited extent of permitting the fact of filing of Suit No. 81 of 2023 to be added, but rejected other proposed amendments concerning the sale deeds and alleged lack of bona fide need. The Prescribed Authority held that such amendments were not necessary for adjudication of the release application.

6. Aggrieved by the partial rejection of the amendment application, the Petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking supervisory correction of the impugned order.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the proposed amendments in paragraphs 52A, 52B and 52C are integral to the real controversy in the release application. It is urged that the Respondent’s alleged subsequent conduct of selling shops and dealing with the properties obtained under the compromise goes directly to the issue of her bona fide need and availability of suitable accommodation, which is the core question in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The sale deeds and transactions sought to be pleaded are said to be either subsequent developments or events that came to the notice of the Petitioner at a later