Through this writ petition the order dated 7.12.2009 passed by Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Cause Court, Jhansi passed on Application No. 38 A-1 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure filed in P.A. Case No. 20 of 2007 Prem Narain Vs. Narendra Kumar has been challenged. By the impugned order, the Judge Small Cause Court has rejected the petitioner's amendment application on the ground that petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings as on earlier occasion the petitioner has filed an application for spot inspection and that application was allowed but the petitioner has not deposited the required cost and hence spot inspection was not made and on the same facts the present amendment application has been filed with a view to delay the proceeding of the case.
Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before the Court that the findings recorded by the court below in this regard is perverse as the alleged construction was made in the year 2009 whereas the application for spot inspection was moved in the year 2007. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri R.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner himself has stated in the written statement that the House No. 601 is a placial building consisting of three stories and there are several rooms and it was for the petitioner to prove the same. In his submissions the petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings of the release application and learned Prescribed Authority has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
I have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the prescribed authority. From the perusal of paragraph 3 of the release application it transpires that the landlord himself has stated that the House No. 601 is a very small house and there are only two rooms although this fact has been denied by the tenant in his written statement but from the perusal of the amendment application it transpires that three rooms have been constructed in the year 2009 but simultaneously it also transpires from the perusal of the impugned order that the petitioner has been moving application after application and many of them have been rejected. It appears to me that the prescribed authority has rightly taken the view that the petitioner is trying to delay the disposal of the release application by moving application after application. In view of that, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed.
However in the interest of justice it is provided that the petitioner may file fresh application for spot inspection within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court. In case such application is filed the Prescribed Authority shall fix a date for spot inspection. The petitioner undertakes to deposit the requisite fee for spot inspection and spot inspection be made within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of the application. Thereafter the prescribed authority shall decide the case expeditiously.
Order Date :- 29.1.2010 Pratima