HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 816 of 2010 (M/S) Devi Lal Sah & another ………..Petitioners Versus Smt. Uma Nath & others …….Respondents Shri Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri R.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents. Dated: 30th June, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 15.05.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Almora in Rent Appeal No.2/2010, “Devi Lal Sah and another Vs. Smt. Uma Nath and others” whereby the Appellate Court rejected the amendment application moved by petitioner no.2 under Rule 22 (d) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent & Eviction), Rules 1972 seeking amendment to incorporate three new paras in the objection/(W.S). 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the respondents filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred as to the Act) before the Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge (Senior Division), Almora which was numbered as Rent Control Case No. 5 of 2010 ‘Smt. Uma Nath and others vs. Devi Lal Sah and another’ for release of shop situated at Chaughanpatta, Mall Road, Almora. Notices of the said case were served upon the petitioners/tenants. The petitioners put in appearance and contested the release application by filing their objection. In their objection the 2 petitioners/ tenants categorically denied all the averments made in the release application and contended that the release application be rejected. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence and vide order dated 30.03.2010 the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, (Sr. Div.), Almora finally allowed the release application of the applicants/respondents. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 30.03.2010, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the District Judge, Almora, which was registered as Rent Appeal no.2 of 2010 “Devi Lal Sah and another Vs. Smt. Uma Nath and others”. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner no.2 moved an application (paper no. 15- Ka) under Section 22-(d) of the of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent & Eviction), Rules 1972 for amendment in the objection/ (W.S.) in the Court of District Judge, Almora seeking incorporation of three new paras after existing para no.8. The amendment application was duly supported by an affidavit. In support of the proposed new contentions/ pleadings the petitioners placed on record of appeal in the Court of District Judge, Almora a certified copy of Khatauni of Municipal Bahar, Patti Khaas Parja, Pargana Baramandal, Tehsil and District Almora pertaining to muntkhit Khata Khatauni no.877 wherein the name of Baal Bhairav Mandir has been recorded as Hissedar Khudkashth in Tok Chaughanpatta. Against the said amendment application and the documents placed on record, no 3 objections were filed by the applicants, neither any document in rebuttal was placed on record by them. The veracity of the document adduced in support of the petitioners was not denied by the respondents. The respondents never placed on record in the Court of District Judge, Almora any document in their favour. The learned District Judge, Almora heard learned counsel for the parties on the amendment application and vide order dated 15.05.2010 rejected the amendment application of the petitioners. Hence this petition. 3. I have heard Mr. Siddhartha Sah, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.C. Uppadhyay, the learned counsel for respondents and perused the record. 4. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned District Judge wrongly rejected the amendment application of petitioners sought to be made in the W.S. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andhra Bank vs. ABN Amro Bank N.V. and others, reported in (2007)6 Supreme Court Cases 167. He referred para-5 of the judgment in which the Hon’ble Court as observed that “So far as the second ground is concerned, we are also of the view that while allowing an application for amendment of the pleadings, the Court cannot go into the question of merit of such amendment. The only question at the time of considering the amendment of the pleadings would be whether such amendment would be 4 necessary for decision of the real controversy between the parties in the suit.” 5. At this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that he does not have any objection, in case, if the amendment application is allowed subject to the condition that the said appeal pending before the District Judge, Almora is decided expeditiously. 6. In view of aforesaid statement of learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 15.05.2010 passed by the District Judge, Almora, in Rent Appeal no.2/2010, “Devi Lal Sah and another Vs. Smt. Uma Nath and others” is set aside. Amendment application paper15-Ka filed by the petitioners before the District Judge, Almora is allowed. The petitioners will make necessary amendment in the objection/written statement within two weeks from today. Thereafter, the respondent/landlord is permitted to file replica within a period of two weeks. The learned District Judge, Almora is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Till the disposal of the appeal, the petitioners shall not be evicted from the disputed shop. 8. Stay application (CLMA No. 5091/2010) also stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) Arpan 30.06.2010