Advocates:
['ADITYA SINGH', '', 'NIKHIL SINGHAL', 'NIKHIL SINGHAL', 'NAVNISH NEGI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

ON THE 27^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

BEFORE:

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1686 of 2019

BETWEEN:

Ram Gopal & another. ...Petitioners

(By Mr. Nikhil Singhal, Advocate)

AND:

Prem Chandra. ...Respondent

(By Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate)

JUDGMENT

This is tenants’ petition against an order

dated 23.04.2019 passed by learned Additional District

Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal in Rent Control

Appeal No. 45 of 2018. By the said order, learned

Additional District Judge rejected application filed by

petitioners, seeking leave to amend their written

statement, at the appellate stage.

2.

Petitioners are tenants in respect of a shop

near

Laxman

Jhula

in

District

Pauri

Garhwal.

Respondent sought release of said shop by filing an

application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban

Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,

1972 (for short ‘U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972’).

3.

Learned Prescribed Authority allowed the

release application, vide judgment dated 19.03.2018

and directed the petitioners to hand over peaceful

possession of the shop to the landlord/respondent.

2

Petitioners challenged the said judgment by filing an

appeal under Section 22 of the said Act, which was

registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 45 of 2018 and

is still pending.

4.

Before appellate Court, petitioners moved an

application seeking leave to amend their written

statement.

Respondent

filed

objection

to

said

application. Learned Appellate Court rejected the

amendment application, vide order dated 23.04.2019,

which is under challenge in this writ petition.

5.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

6.

In their application seeking amendment,

petitioners contended that the property, including the

shop, was purchased by respondent through a

registered sale deed dated 07.06.1990 and upon

perusal of the sale deed, it is now revealed that

respondent did not purchase any building; but,

purchased open land, therefore, he cannot be landlord

in respect of the shop in question. It was further

contended that property purchased by respondent does

not come within the meaning of ‘building’ as defined

under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, therefore, application

for release of shop by invoking U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972

is not maintainable. Petitioners further contended that

since open land was purchased in 1990 without any

shop, therefore, the shop was constructed after

purchase of open land, as such provisions of U.P. Act

No. 13 of 1972 will not apply to the shop in question

(in view of second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section

2 of the said Act). These contentions were sought to

be added in the written statement.

3

7.

Respondent

opposed

the

amendment

application by filing objection in which he contended

that it has been filed to cause delay in disposal of the

appeal

and

further

that

petitioners/tenants

had

knowledge about all facts, which they now seek to add

in their written statement and further that relationship

of landlord-tenant is established between him and

petitioners, which fact has been admitted by them,

therefore, the amendment application deserves to be

rejected.

8.

Learned

Appellate

Court

rejected

the

amendment application by holding that appellants

(petitioners herein) have admitted that they are

continuing as tenants in respect of the shop in question

before its purchase by the respondent, therefore, they

cannot now contend that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would

not apply merely based on some recital in the sale

deed. It was further held that petitioners themselves

have invoked Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for

depositing rent and further that the amendment is not

necessary for the purpose of determining the real

question in con