SMT. BEENA SENGAR Vs. SMT. MAYA CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The respondent landlord preferred a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the petitioner tenant. After the evidence of the plaintiff had been led, she preferred an amendment application for incorporating the fact that she was tenant of three rooms instead of two and other amenities alongwith other amendments. The other amendments were allowed but the amendment with regard to changing the extent of tenancy was rejected by the impugned order which is subjected to challenge.

(2.) THE Court below rejected the amendment sought for increasing the extent of the tenanted accommodation on the ground that the petitioner had admitted that he was only a tenant of two rooms, one verandah and other amenities in an injunction Suit No. 41 of 2005 filed against he previous landlords who were the vendors of the present landlord. The Court also found that in the present case while depositing rent under section of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, again the tenant had admitted of being a tenant of only two rooms, one verandah, latrine and other amenities.

(3.) A copy of the plaint of the injunction Suit No. 41 of 2005 has been filed alongwith the counter -affidavit and which discloses that he had made an equivocal statement that he was a tenant of only two rooms, one verandah and other amenities. Therefore, the argument is not only misleading but falsely made knowingly. Further, there is absolutely no denial of the fact that even in proceedings for deposit of rent under section of the Act as against the present landlord, he had disclosed the tenancy of two rooms and other amenities. This shows that the petitioner apart from misleading the Court with falsehood, has wasted the time of the Court and financially burdened the respondent landlord.