Ran Vijai Singh, J.@mdashHeard Sri Dharmendra Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashok Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents. Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 7.8.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Jaunpur by which petitioner''s amendment application No. 230 Ka for amending the written statement has been rejected.
2. Through the amendment application the petitioner has sought for adding ground No. 21-B after paragraph 21 of the written statement by stating that in the year 2008-09 in the back portion of the disputed premises the landlord respondent has started a business known as Max Vijai Limited and, therefore, the requirement on which the release was sought has vanished. The respondent has filed objection stating therein that for bringing on record the subsequent events, the amendment in the written statement is not necessary. Number of decisions were placed before the learned Judge for and against by the parties and ultimately the learned Judge has rejected the petitioner''s application taking note of the fact that the appeal is pending since 1999 and various administrative circulars and judicial orders have been issued/passed for disposal of the old cases at the earliest possible.
3. While assailing this order Sri Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Additional District Judge has erred in rejecting the petitioner''s amendment application only on account of pendency of the appeal since 1999 without addressing himself on merit of the amendment application.
4. Refuting the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the learned Additional District Judge Court No. 4, Jaunpur has rightly rejected the petitioner''s application taking into consideration that the pendency of the appeal since 1999. In his submissions the subsequent events can be brought on record by way of an affidavit and for that amendment in the written statement is not necessary. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in this case, where the petitioner has approached this Court through Writ Petition No. 4566 of 2005,
5. Sri Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment was necessary for the purpose to decide the release application as the release of the accommodation was sought on the ground to expand the shop for exhibition of three kinds of Mahendra tractors. He further submitted that the landlord has already established new business known as Max Vijai Limited and, therefore, the requirement on which the release was sought does not exist and the Court below has erred in rejecting the amendment application.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and considering their submissions I am of the considered opinion that it is a settled law that the subsequent event, if necessary for the purpose of deciding the case on merit can be brought on record by way of an affidavit and filing of an amendment application is not necessary in the case filed u/s 21(1)(a) or (b) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as this case is of summary in nature there the cases are decided on the basis of exchange of affidavits.
7. It may be noted that the release application was filed in the year 1983 which was allowed in the year 1999. The appeal was filed in the year 1999. The appeal is pending for the last 14 years and the petitioner on various occasion has filed amendment applications which have been rejected. The requirement and the situation of the year 1983 cannot be assumed to be static and it is always open that if any subsequent event is necessary to be brought in the notice of the Court for deciding the case on merit and that is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter that can be brought on record by way of filing an affidavit and for that amendment in the written statement is not necessary, therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge.
8. The matter may be examined from another angle also. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) provides that the application filed u/s 21(1) of the Act shall as far as possible be decided within a period of two weeks from the date of its presentation. In the present case the release application was filed in the year 1983 which was decided in the year 1999. The appeal against the order of release was filed in the year 1999. The said appeal is pending for the last 14 years. It cannot be disputed that the appeal is the continuation of the original proceeding of the release application. The embargo under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 of the Rules is to decide the release application within a period of two weeks. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 of the Rules may not be mandatory in nature but this fact cannot be brushed aside that the release application was filed in the year 1983 which is still un-redressed even after 30 years. This is an unfortunate state of affairs. Therefore also I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge dated 7.8.2013. The writ petition is dismissed. However, the cost imposed in the impugned order is waived. It is also observed that the learned Additional District Judge before whom the appeal is pending, without entertaining any adjournment of any of the parties shall decide the appeal within a period of two months from the date of filing a certified copy of the order of this Court. In case any adjournment is sought by any of the party the same may be allowed only after imposing cost not less than Rs. 500/- with the direction to deposit the same by the next date fixed. In case of non deposit of the cost the right of defaulting party to participate in the future proceeding be forfeited.
