SURAJ PRAKASH Vs. WAQF KHUDABAND TALA MAUSOOMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manish Goel, learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Counsel for respondent. Sri Dayal, learned Counsel for respondent stated at the bar that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit and the matter may be heard and decided at this stage under the Rules of the Court on the basis of material on record. Accordantly, I proceed to decide this case at this stage finally with the consent of learned Counsels for parties under the Rules of the Court.

(2.) The writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.7.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Saharanpur dismissing petitioner's SCC Revision No. 56 of 2011 and confirming Trial Court's order dated 26.9.2011 passed in SCC Suit No. 60 of 2001 allowing Application No. 98-C of the plaintiff-respondent permitting an amendment in the plaint. on the ground that such amendment would not change the nature of the suit and, therefore, can be accepted on payment of a cost of Rupees one hundred.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the present dispute, in brief, are that plaintiff-respondent filed Small Cause Suit No. 60 of 2001 against the petitioner-defendant, Suraj Prakash, seeking his eviction from the shop in which petitioner-defendant is a tenant. The eviction of petitioner-defendant was sought on the ground that he has committed default in payment of rent on account whereof tenancy has been terminated and he is liable for ejectment. The suit was filed vide plaint dated 3/ 18.7.2001. The suit proceeded for trial and statement of Iftikar Ahmad, P.W. 1 was recorded on 19.10.2002 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition).