RAM PRASAD Vs. IRTIZA HUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. This revision has been filed against the order allowing amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff had claimed Rs. 18,500/- as arrears of rent and other dues, from 1-1-1979. By way of the proposed amendment the valuation is to be enhanced to Rs. 23,125/-. The other amendment was in respect of a portion of the premises in the suit. That amendment had not been pressed and consequently disallowed. By claiming any amount the plaintiff cannot get a decree. The decree can be granted only in respect of the amount that is due to the plaintiff after proving the case.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist, however, argued that he had deposited the amount claimed in the suit initially under Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). If the amount is increased he may not be entitled to benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20. His argument is misconceived. According to him he had deposited the required amount within the prescribed period. THE date of amendment will not become the 'First hearing' for purposes of the sub-section. First hearing is clarified in the explanation to that sub-section. THE first hearing cannot fall twice. If sub-section (4) of Section 20 has been complied with after the suit was filed, the defendant would be entitled to its benefit, irrespective of amendment.