Court No. - 19
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4132 of 2016 Petitioner :- Reena Model Academy(Educational Institution) And Another Respondent :- Smt. Saroj Tandon And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Singh,P.H. Vashishtha,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deepak Kumar Jaiswal,Vinod Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed assailing the order dated 8.4.2016 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Bareilly in Civil Appeal No.12 of 2015. By the said order, the appellate court in an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 against order passed by the Prescribed Authority in proceedings under Section 21 (8), had rejected the application filed by the petitioners seeking amendment in the grounds of appeal as well as the written objections filed before the Prescribed Authority in response to application under Section 21 (8).
The grounds and the objections which were sought to be incorporated were to the effect that the tenancy was in favour of Reena Model Academy Management Society, Bareilly and not Reena Model Academy, the recognised institution, which is being run from the tenanted premises. The other objection was that all co-landlords had not been impleaded in the application under Section 21 (8) of the Act and thus, it was not maintainable.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the earlier Manager was not well and also unaware of various documents, which were duly executed between the parties, therefore, he could not take the above pleas when the matter was pending before the Prescribed Authority.
However, this Court does not find the explanation convincing enough to permit the petitioners to carry out amendment in the objection at the appellate stage.
Sri B.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would feel content in case they are permitted to raise the aforesaid pleas at the time of hearing, as these, according to him, are purely legal submissions.
Learned counsel for the respondent landlord has no objection to the same.
Accordingly, without interfering with the impugned order, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise the above pleas during hearing, but they shall not be permitted to lead any evidence, oral or documentary, as agreed to by learned counsel for the petitioners. The appellate court shall make endeavour to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months, as it is stated to be pending since last three years. While deciding the appeal on merits, the appellate court would not be influenced by any observation made by it in the impugned order.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J) Order Date :- 19.12.2018 SL