JUDGMENT A.K. Yog, J.
1. Petitioner is a tenant of a residential accommodation and facing eviction proceedings of release sought by Landlord under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (for short called 'the Act").
2. Release application was filed in the year 1983 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Prescribed Authority allowed release application on December 20, 1995 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). Thereafter tenant-petitioner filed Rent Control Appeal No. 20 of 1996 before respondent No. 1. During the pendency of aforesaid appeal, tenant-petitioner filed an application for amendment (Paper No. 7A. copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition). Landlord respondent in the said appeal filed objections (Annexure-5 to the writ petition).
3. Appellate authority rejected amendment application vide Judgment and order dated August 6. 1999 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition).
4. I propose to decide this petition finally without issuing notice to the respondents inasmuch as by admitting the petition, the proceedings in appeal shall be unduly delayed, which will not be in the interest of the landlord-respondent, who opposed amendment application on the ground that tenant by filing amendment intended to delay the proceedings. In order to obviate the delay. I propose to send the case back for the reasons hereunder.
5. The only ground in the impugned order for rejecting the amendment application is in 'ordinate delay' in seeking amendment, appellate court has recorded no finding that 'delay' on the part of petitioner is deliberate or mala fide.
6. In view of the decision rendered by Apex Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, 1969 (1) SCC 869, the appellate court ought to have considered the pleadings of the parties relating to the amendment and the objections filed therein and allowed 'amendment' in question, if it did not change nature of the original proceedings. In absence of a categorical finding whether amendments sought was mala fide. It should have allowed the amendments and awarded costs to compensate the landlord-respondent. A mere bald observation that there was 'over delay', was not sufficient to reject the same.
7. Ground for refusing to allow amendment is not sustainable under law.
8. Impugned order dated August 6. 1999 suffers from manifest error apparent on the face of record. Impugned order dated August 6. 1999 is set aside.
9. Petitioner through his counsel undertakes to file certified copy of this judgment before respondent No. I. XlVth Additional District Judge, Allahabad, within two weeks from today and he (respondent No. I) shall decide amendment application on merits in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties within six weeks from the date of filing of a certified copy of this judgment before him.
10. It is, however, made clear that contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 8 can approach this Court. If they are aggrieved by this judgment and if so advised by filing a review petition since they are not served and heard before decision of this writ petition under the circumstances disclosed above.
11. Writ petition stands allowed subject to the observations/ directions made above.