Hari Datt Pathak vs Sanjeeda Begum

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

This is tenant's petition, against the order dated 01.07.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/Prescribed Authority, Nainital in Rent Control Case No. 21 of 2012, whereby landlady's application seeking amendment in the release application was allowed.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

Respondent (landlady) filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (from hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972") for release of the premises in question on the ground of personal and bona fide need. Tenant (petitioner herein) filed his written statement against the ground set up in the release application. Thereafter, landlady's evidence was closed. After four years of filing the release application, landlady moved an application seeking leave to amend her release application. By the said amendment, respondent wanted to introduce a new ground for release of the premises, namely, reconstruction of the building after demolition, which is an independent ground for release under Section 21(1)(b) of Act No.13 of 1972. Respondent relied upon one letter issued by Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital to her on 30.05.2012 in which it is stated that during inspection, it was found that cracks have developed in the walls of the building, which may pose threat to the public.

Learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Nainital allowed the said amendment application of the respondent (landlady) vide order dated 01.07.2016, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the building is in a good and habitable condition and no repair or reconstruction is needed and this fact is corroborated by the report of the Court Commissioner. He further submits that the letter dated 30.05.2016 was procured by the respondent from Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital, as it refers to information sent by the respondent to the Nagar Palika Parishad regarding dilapidated condition of the building. He further submits that by impugned order, the nature of the proceeding has been changed and a new case has been set up on completely new grounds.

This Court finds some substance in the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 21 (1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is extracted below:-

"21. Proceeding for release of building under occupation of tenant. - (1) The prescribed authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists namely-

(a) that the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust:

(b) that the building is in a dilapidated condition and is required for purposes of demolition and new construction:"

Under the Scheme of the Act, landlord can seek release of building under occupation of tenant only on two grounds, namely, (i) that the building is bona fide required in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family and (ii) that the building is in a dilapidated condition and is required for purposes of demolition and new construction. Release was originally sought on the first ground, subsequently second ground is sought to be added.

According to the landlady, building is more than 80 years old and is in a dilapidated condition. She filed the release application in the year 2012 in which she sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that the building is bona fide required by her in its existing form for occupation by herself. In her release application, she (landlady) did not take the plea that the building is in dilapidated condition. After four years, she sought amendment in the release application to add the ground available under Section 21 (1) (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. If the building was in habitable condition at the time of filing of release application, then how it became dilapidated within four years. It is inconceivable that the landlady was not aware about the condition of the building at the time of filing release application. Thus, the landlady did not act with due diligence.

In such view of the matter, amendment sought by her (landlady) appears to be not only belated one but also an afterthought. Moreover, the amendment sought by the landlady, if allowed, would change the nature of the proceedings. Learned court below has overlooked this aspect of the matter.

In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.07.2016 is set aside. No order as to costs.