Court No. - 5

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 277 of 2021

Petitioner :- Shyam Narayan Singh

Respondent :- Rajaram Yadav And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mustaqeem Ahmad,Anita Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- Archit Mandhyan,Rishabh Kumar

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Archit

Mandhyan, learned counsel for the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging

the order dated 23.12.2020 passed by Additional District

Judge/F.T.C. 3rd, District Ballia in Rent Control Appeal No. 1

of 2017 by which the appellate court has rejected the

amendment application filed by the petitioner for incorporating

certain amendment in the written statement.

The respondents have filed an application under Section 21 (1)

(a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of shop detailed in the

release application on the ground that the shop is needed for the

establishment of business of son of the landlord. The release

application was contested by the petitioner and the prescribed

authority by judgement and order dated 6.5.2017 passed in P.A.

Case No. 141 of 2013 allowed the release application, which is

enclosed as annexure-8 to the writ petition.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgement and order

dated 6.5.2017 preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 1 of 2017 in

the year 2017. After more than two years from the date of

institution of appeal, the petitioner filed an amendment

application application seeking amendment in the written

statement. In the amendment application, it is stated that due to

inadvertence certain facts which could not be incorporated in

the written statement though they are necessary in the interest

of justice to be incorporated in the written statement. By the

amendment application, the petitioner wanted that after

paragraph No. 4 of the written statement paragraph 4-aa to 4-va

being incorporated. In nut shell, the amendment was sought on

the ground that the respondent-landlord has instituted the

release application No. 3 of 1997 in respect of same shop on the

ground that the shop was need for the establishment of business

of son of landlord. The release application was dismissed on

the ground of compromise and therefore, these facts are

necessary to be incorporated in the written statement. Hence,

the present release application is barred by principle of res-

judicata.

The amendment application was contested by the respondent

contending inter-alia that there is no provision in the Rent

Control Act or Rules framed thereunder which provides power

to the appellate court to permit the amendment in the pleadings

at the belated stage. It is further stated that the facts which the

petitioner wants to incorporate by way of amendment were in

the knowledge of the petitioner and as the petitioner has not

taken said plea in the written statement, the same cannot be

allowed to be brought on record through amendment at belated

stage i.e. at the stage of appeal.

The court below in the order dated 23.12.2020 has reproduced

the amendment which has been sought by the petitioner in its

order and after considering the material on record held that

there is delay in filing the amendment application and as such

amendment application cannot be allowed at the belated stage

of appeal particularly when no facts which the petitioner wants

to bring on record through amendment are said to have occured

subsequent to filing of appeal.

The court found that the facts which the petitioner wants to set

up in the written statement by way of amendment was very well

in the knowledge of the petitioner. Therefore, as there is no

subsequent development which had taken place after filing of

the written statement which are necessary to bring on record,

the amendment application is not maintainable. The appellate

court also noted the fact that a compromise decree dated

25.11.1998 in P.A. Case No. 3 of 1997 has also