# Narain Das v. Prescribed Authority Civil Judge S.D. Lucknow & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 240
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-24
- **Case number:** Matters U/A 227 No. 34244 of 2019
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narain-das-v-prescribed-authority-civil-judge-s-d-lucknow-ors-48188
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Anurag Srivastava

A. Practice & Procedure - The Court has
perused the amendment application and
find that the observations made by the
learned trial court regarding the fact that
it would not be just and proper to allow
such
amendment
application
at
such
belated stage to be rightly rejected. (Para
22)
Petition Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
money due under the impugned decree with
the Trial Court and also furnishes an
undertaking that he will handover peaceful
possession of the demised shop to the
plaintiff on expiry of six months of date. In
the event of default, the decree will become
executable forthwith.
----------
(2022)03ILR A240
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 34244 of 2019

Narain Das ...Petitioner
Versus
Prescribed Authority Civil Judge S.D.
Lucknow & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vijay Krishna Srivastava, Ashish Chaturvedi,
Pratichi
Chaturvedi,
Vijay
Krishna
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anurag Srivastava

A. Practice & Procedure - The Court has
perused the amendment application and
find that the observations made by the
learned trial court regarding the fact that
it would not be just and proper to allow
such
amendment
application
at
such
belated stage to be rightly rejected. (Para
22)
Petition Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sajjan Kumar Vs Ram Kishan 2005 (13) SCC
89

2. Usha Devi Vs Rijwan Ahmad & ors. 2008 (3)
SCC 717
3. Ramesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Rajmala Exports
Pvt. Ltd. & ors. 2012 (5) SCC 337

4. Baldev Singh & ors. Vs Manohar Singh 2006
(6) SCC 498 (distinguished)

5. Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs Makhan Singh
2009 (27) LCD 1483

6. Sampath Kumar Vs Ayyakannu & anr. 2002
(7) SCC 559

7.
Modi
Spinning
&
Weaving
Mills
Co.
Ltd.VsLadha Ram & Co. 1976 (4) SCC 320
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Anurag Srivastava,
learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This petition has been filed praying
for quashing of the order dated 16.11.2019
passed by the Prescribed Authority i.e.
Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division),
Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, in P.A. Case
No.57 of 2015: Smt. Ram Kumari and
Another Vs. Narain Dass.

3. By the order impugned, the
application for amendment Paper no. C-44
of the written statement moved by the
petitioner who is the respondent/ tenant has
been rejected.

4. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
is the tenant of a shop situated in ground
floor of a building facing Gungay Nawab
Park (Ram Krishna Park), Aminabad,
Lucknow, on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-.
Sri Rajeev Agarwal the respondent no.3 is
the landlord of the property in question.
One Mukund Lal filed a Suit for eviction
against the petitioner alleging himself to be
the landlord. The said Suit was registered
3 All. Narain Das Vs. Prescribed Authority Civil Judge S.D. Lucknow & Ors.
241
as S.C.C. Suit no.67 of 1990: Mukund Lal
Agarwal Vs. Narain Das, and allowed on
19.12.1992. The petitioner preferred a
S.C.C. Revision No.07 of 1993. The
Revision was allowed on 04.09.1993
holding that there was no relationship of
landlord and tenant between Mukund Lal
Agarwal and the petitioner.

5. Against the order passed by the
Revisional Court, Mukund Lal Agarwal
filed a Writ Petition No.158 (Rent Control)
of 1993 before this Court. During the
pendency of the writ petition, Mukund Lal
Agarwal died. He had bequeathed the
property in dispute in favour of Smt. Ram
Kumari. On the basis of a Will, Smt. Ram
Kumari
moved
an
application
for
substitution in the Writ Petition No.158
(Rent Control) of 1993 which was allowed.
Smt. Ram Kumari was substituted in place
of the original petitioner. The writ petition
was dismissed by this Court by a detailed
order dated 11.2.2013. The Court enhanced
the rent from Rs.200/- per month to
Rs.2,000/- per month, which was to be
given to the landlords Smt. Ram Kumari
and Rajeev Agarwal by the tenant with
effect from 2014 and in case rent was not
paid to the landlords, Smt. Ram Kumari
and Rajeev Agarwal, they could jointly file
a Suit for eviction against the tenant on
grounds of non-payment of rent.

The respondent nos.2 and 3 i.e.
Smt. Ram Kumari and Sri Rajeev Agarwal
did not file any Suit for eviction on the
ground of arrears of payment of rent. They
however jointly filed a Release application
under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act
No.13 of 1972 for release of shop in
question as it was needed by the daughtersin-law of Smt. Ram Kumari i.e. for the wife
of Sri Rajeev Agarwal and wife of Sri
Sandeep Agarwal, her two sons. The
petitioner filed a written statement denying
any need of the plaintiffs on the basis of
vague averments made in the release
application. When the matter was ripe for
hearing and the counsel was preparing the
case for arguments, it came to the
knowledge of the petitioners that in
pursuance of judgment passed in Writ
Petition No.158 (Rent Control) of 1993,
Smt. Ram Kumari and Sri Rajeev Agarwal
had been recognized as landlords although
the Court had not expressed any opinion
with regard to the title of the shop in
question.

6. It has been submitted by Sri Vijay
Krishna Srivastava that at no point of time
the
petitioner
had
recognized
the
respondent no.2 as his landlady. The
petitioner was paying the rent only to the
respondent no.3 Rajeev Agarwal, who was
the landlord therefore the application for
release under Section 21 (1)(a) was not
maintainable on behalf of Smt. Ram
Kumari and an application for amendment
was therefore moved for permission to
amend the written statement to add
paragraph-22A and 22B after the existing
paragraph-22 of the written statement. The
application for amendment was objected to
by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. The trial
court wrongly rejected the application for
amendment by the impugned order. In
doing so, the High Court's order was
ignored by the trial court. The High Court
had observed that Smt. Ram Kumari and
Sri Rajeev Agarwal were at liberty to file a
fresh Suit on any ground which is available
to them which meant that Suit could only
have been filed under Section 20 of the
Rent Control Act and not under Section 21
by way of a release application before the
Prescribed Authority. Smt. Ram Kumari
had not been recognized as landlady, she
could not pray for release of bonafide shop
242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in favour of her daughters-in-law to
establish them in business.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has argued that trial court has ignored the
observations made by the Supreme Court in
the case of Sajjan Kumar Vs. Ram Kishan
2005 (13) SCC 89, wherein the Supreme
Court had observed that amendment even
at the final stage of litigation could be
allowed, if it was necessary for the purpose
of deciding the real question in controversy
between the parties. Refusal to permit
amendment was likely to create needless
complications at stage of Execution, more
so when error in question had been pointed
out in written statement. It held that the
amendment should have been allowed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance upon Usha Devi Vs.
Rijwan Ahmad and others 2008 (3) SCC
717, wherein it was observed that merit of
the proposed amendment was not to be
seen by the trial court while deciding the
application for amendment.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
has further placed reliance upon Ramesh
Kumar Agarwal Vs. Rajmala Exports
Private Limited and others reported in
2012 (5) SCC 337, where the Supreme
Court had observed that the learned trial
court
should
not
ordinarily
refuse
bonafide, legitimate, honest and necessary
amendments and should never permit
malafide
and
dishonest
amendments.
Though the amendments proposed cannot
be claimed as a matter of right but the
Courts while deciding such prayers should
not adopt a hypertechnical approach.
Normally, amendments are allowed in the
pleadings
to
avoid
multiplicity
of
litigation.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has also placed reliance upon several other
judgments i.e. Baldev Singh and others Vs.
Manohar Singh 2006 (6) SCC 498;
Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Makhan
Singh 2009 (27) LCD 1483; and Sampath
Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and another 2002
(7) SCC 559.

11. It has been argued by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the proposed
amendment will not change the nature of
the case in any manner. Learned trial court
committed an error in law while rejecting
the application for amendment made by the
tenant.

12. Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned
counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3, has
referred to his counter affidavit filed on
31.01.2020. It has been submitted that
application for release made under Section
21 (1)(a) of the Act of 1972 on 09.09.2015 is
still pending before the trial court even after
seven years. The matter had been heard by
the trial court and had been fixed for final
arguments on 27.01.2020, whereafter the
petitioner had moved the amendment
application.
By
means
of
the
said
amendment application, the petitioner had
tried to dispute right of the respondent no.2
to file the release application as she was not
recognized as the landlady but rent was
being given to Sri Rajeev Agarwal the
respondent
no.3
and
he
alone
was
recognized by the petitioner as landlord of
the property in question. The reason for the
amendment proposed to be made was to
remove the very basis of moving the release
application and was malafide and dishonest
in nature going against the very observations
made by the High Court in its judgment and
order dated 11.12.2013 in Writ Petition
No.158 (Rent Control) of 1993.
3 All. Narain Das Vs. Prescribed Authority Civil Judge S.D. Lucknow & Ors.
243

13. Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned
counsel for the respondent, has taken this
Court through the entire judgment rendered
by this Court earlier on 11.12.2013, and has
submitted that this Court had recognized
Smt. Ram Kumari as the landlady along
with her son Sri Rajeev Agarwal as
landlord, therefore, it was directed by this
Court that rent was to be given to both
jointly. The petitioner had moved a Review
Application No.26 of 2014 praying for
review of the order dated 11.12.2013 which
was also rejected by the Court on
15.01.2014. The Review Application was
made on a different ground altogether as is
evident from perusal of annexure-7 to the
writ petition which is a copy of the order
dated 15.01.2014 passed by this Court on
the Review Application. The petitioner did
not protest against the observations made
by the High Court nor filed any review/
modification/ correction application in the
earlier Writ Petition No.158 (Rent Control)
of 1993 praying for the Court to modify its
order and to remove the name of Smt. Ram
Kumari as the landlady. In the written
statement filed before the Prescribed
Authority, the petitioner had recognized
Smt. Ram Kumari as landlady. Later on, by
means of the proposed amendment, a
dispute was tried to be created with regard
to Smt. Ram Kumari only because the
petitioner wanted to remove the basis of
filing the release application by the
landlady expressing a bonafide need of the
shop in question to establish her two
daughters-in-law. Learned trial court has
rightly rejected the application by the order
impugned and this Court should not
interfere in such an order.

14. This Court has considered the
order impugned dated 16.11.2019 which
mentions the fact of the tenant filing the
application Paper No.C-44 and also the
objections filed by the landlord to such
amendment application. The Court had
perused this Court's earlier order dated
11.12.2013 and has mentioned the same
also in the order and thereafter rejected the
same on grounds that it had been moved
with extreme delay at the time when
evidence had been led by both the parties
and their case had been fixed for
arguments. Also, it has been observed by
the trial court that whatever the tenant
wished to bring on record by means of the
proposed amendment was already there as
mention of the judgement and order dated
11.12.2013 had been made by the petitioner
in his written statement itself. The facts as
mentioned in the High Court's order could
not be denied by him.

15. This Court finds no good ground
to show interference in such an order which
has considered all the facts as also the
papers available in the file.

16. In so far as the first judgment
cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is
concerned, this Court has gone through the
judgment rendered in Sajjan Kumar Vs.
Ram
Kishan,
where
the
proposed
amendment were with respect to the correct
description of the Suit property in the plaint
and, therefore, the Supreme Court had
observed that such amendment should be
permitted even though filed with delay as
non amendment of the pleading and failure
to describe the Suit property in question
correctly
would
create
needless
complication at the stage of execution in
the event of success of plaintiff in the Suit.

17. The second judgment relied upon
by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
Usha Devi Vs. Rijwan Ahamad and others,
wherein
the
Supreme
Court
was
considering the amendment petition having
244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been filed after framing of issues and
observed that Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17
which
bars
delayed
amendment
of
pleadings is referable to the stage after
commencement of trial. In this case also
there was error in describing the property in
plaint schedule. The defendants filed the
written statement raising the question of
wrong description. No rejoinder was filed
to the written statement by the plaintiff.
Issues were framed on the basis of
pleadings. The proceedings in the Suit
lingered and the plaintiff filed a Misc.
Application alleging breach of interim
injunction. An amendment application was
later on filed by the plaintiffs stating that
due to inadvertence the said land was
wrongly described in the plaint schedule
and the mistake is liable to be corrected.
The amendment application was rejected
by the learned trial court giving finding of
lack of due diligence. The Supreme Court
held that in view of the error of description
of property in plaint, the defendant had to
suffer injunction against their own property.
In such a case ends of justice would be met
by allowing the proposed amendment
subject to payment of cost by the plaintiff.

18. In Ramesh Kumar Agarwal Vs.
Rajmala Exports Private Limited 2012
(5) SCC 337, a Suit was filed for specific
performance of agreement for sale of
immovable property, pleading that the
entire consideration under the agreement
had
been
paid.
The
amendment
application was filed immediately after
filing
of
the
Suit
and
before
commencement
of
trial,
seeking
to
explain how and in what manner such
payment of consideration was made by
the
plaintiff
giving
details
of
the
payments. The Court observed that the
proposed amendment would not alter the
cause of action nor it would cause any
inconsistency in the case of the plaintiff
or prejudice the appellant/ defendant.

19. In Baldev Singh and others Vs.
Manohar Singh and another, the Supreme
Court was considering the amendment of
written statement by the defendants and
how it was different from amendment of
plaint and it observed in paragraph 15
and 16 that inconsistent pleas can be
raised by the defendants in the written
statement although the same may not be
permissible in the case of the plaintiff. It
relied upon the judgement rendered by it
earlier in Modi Spinning and Weaving
Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Ladha Ram and
Company 1976 (4) SCC 320, where the
Supreme Court had held that inconsistent
or alternative pleas can be made in the
written statement.

The
Judgement
in
Baldev
Singh
(supra)
cannot
be
made
applicable to the case of the petitioner
wherein the petitioner clearly admitted
in the written statement itself that it
recognized
Smt.
Ram
Kumari
as
landlord on the basis of a judgment
rendered by this Court in Writ Petition
No.158 (Rent Control) of 1993.

20. In Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs.
Makhan Singh, the Supreme Court has
observed that even if the prayer for
amendment was a belated one, then also
the question that needs to be decided is
whether by allowing the amendment the
real controversy between the parties may
be resolved. Under Order 6 Rule 17 of
the C.P.C. wide powers and unfettered
discretion have been conferred on the
Court to allow amendment of the
pleadings to a party in such a manner and
on such terms as it appears to the Court
just and proper.
3 All. Sarfaraj Ahmad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
245

21. In Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu
and another, the Supreme Court had
observed that amendment can be allowed at
any stage and the question of delay in
moving amendment application should be
decided not by calculating the period from
the date of institution of Suit alone but by
reference to the stage to which the hearing
of the Suit had proceeded. Pre-trial
amendment are allowed very liberally than
those which are sought to be made after
commencement of trial or after conclusion
thereof.

22. This Court has perused the
amendment application and finds that the
observations made by the learned trial court
regarding the fact that it would not be just
and proper to allow such amendment
application at such belated stage to be
rightly rejected and a judicious exercise of
its power.

23. This Court having perused the
said judgments of the Supreme Court finds
no observations therein which would be in
favour of the petitioner.

24. The petition stands dismissed as
devoid of merits.
----------
(2022)03ILR A245
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ C No. 1313 of 2022

Sarfaraj Ahmad & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Pawan Kumar Pandey, Sharad Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ajeya Mishra, Yogendra Kumar
Mishra

A. Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Section 4 B - correctness of the list
of members of the General Body of the
society - Documents to be examined - No
bar in the Registrar going through other
documents, apart from the documents, as
mentioned in Section 4 B of the Act, 1860
in order to examine the correctness of the
list of members (Para 18)

Whenever a list is submitted or there is any
change in the list of members and any objection
is raised or otherwise, Registrar has to prima
facie satisfy himself that change has been made
in accordance with provisions of bye-laws and
prima facie genuine - Registrar has to examine
the correctness of the list of members on the
basis of the register of members, minutes book,
cash book, receipt book of membership fee and
bank pass book of the society - documents
which are required to be examined by the
Registrar have been indicated but the legislature
in its wisdom has not used the word "only" so
as to preclude the Registrar from going into
other documents that may be relevant for
arriving
at
a
finding
pertaining
to
the
correctness of the list - Registrar may also
examine agenda, minutes of meeting and other
relevant steps taken by Society - while making
the inquiry u/s 4 B of the Act, 1860, the
Registrar is not supposed to act as a post office
rather is supposed to act administratively by
applying his mind on the facts and documents
placed before him - inquiry made by the
Registrar is not final inasmuch as the aggrieved
party can always take up the matter before a
competent Court. (Para 17, 18)

Twenty eight petitioners were inducted as
members by the society - list of the members
was submitted in the office of the Registrar for
registration
but
instead
of
it
being
registered/admitted objections were invited -
Various objections were raised by various
persons to the induction of the petitioners as
members - By the impugned order petitioners