HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10664 of 2025 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Dushyant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.1. 2. Notice need not be issued to other respondents no.2/1 to 2/6, as the matter is being finally heard and decided at the admission stage without calling for counter affidavit. 3. Facts, in nutshell, are that respondent no.1 and father of respondents no.2/1 to 2/6 filed an application for release of the accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 on the ground that accommodation in question is needed for personal need as their family has grown up, and family of three brothers have total 28 members. 4. The release application was contested by petitioner who filed his written statement wherein in para 1, the tenancy was admitted @ Rs.15/- per month. The trial Court, after considering the bonafide need and comparative hardship, had allowed the release application on 25.02.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner had preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the order impugned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed during pendency of the appeal which was allowed and additional evidence was led to substantiate that the property in question is a waqf property. He has further submitted that amendment to the grounds of memo of appeal and application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed and the ground was also taken in the appeal. According to him, the appellate Court should have remanded back the matter to the trial Court for Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dushyant Singh, M.C. Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ratnesh Kumar Pandey Mohammad Israel .....Petitioner(s) Nazar Mohammad And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) deciding the matter afresh in view of the fact that proceeding under Section 13 of U.P. Act of 1972 is barred by provisions of Section 2(bb) of the Act. 6. Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 has submitted that the tenant-petitioner in his written statement had admitted the tenancy @ Rs.15/- per month, and there was no plea in the written statement that the property is a waqf property. He further submits that the property belongs to three brothers who had filed release application. 7. According to Sri Pandey, the photocopy of the waqfnama was filed by the petitioner at the appellate stage without amending the plea and the same was discarded by the appellate Court on the ground that there was no plea in the written statement as to the property is waqf and no finding was recorded by the trial Court and the said fact cannot be introduced at the appellate stage as the written statement remained unamended. 8. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. It is an admitted case of the petitioner in his written statement that he is the tenant @ Rs.15/- per month. Apart from the admission made in the written statement, no specific ground for opposing the release application was taken in the additional plea filed by the defendant-petitioner. It was for the first time that during pendency of appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was moved for filing additional evidence which was allowed by the trial Court. The petitioner, thereafter, had filed photocopy of the waqf deed to demonstrate that the property in question was waqf property, but the plea remained unamended. 10. It is well settled that the evidence only supports the pleadings and since basic plea was missing in the written statement filed by the petitioner and no effort was made by him to get the written statement amended, the documents introduced at the appellate stage cannot be considered and the property in question cannot be held to be a waqf property and the proceedings cannot be said to be barred under Section 2(bb) of the Act of 1972. 11. Once, the petitioner had admitted the tenancy @ Rs.15/- per month, the release application was allowed considering the bonafide need of the respondents-landlord and also comparing the hardships between the parties. From the record, it is clear that no effort was made by the petitioner to get an A227 No. 10664 of 2025 2 alternative accommodation and the appellate Court as well as trial Court has recorded specific findings of the fact to this effect which cannot be interfered while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Moreover, only averment has been made that the family of the respondents are residing at Delhi, but no documentary proof was filed to substantiate his pleading. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference is required in the order impugned. 14. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 15. After dismissal of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that some reasonable time be granted to the petitioner for vacating the premises in question. 16. In view of the prayer so made, three months' time is granted for vacating the premises in question, subject to the undertaking being furnished by the petitioner before the Court below within a week from today. October 8, 2025 SK Goswami A227 No. 10664 of 2025 3 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad