BABLOO Vs. III RD A D J FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant -petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 13.01.2000 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Faizabad and the judgment and order dated 31.08.2002 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Faizabad, has preferred this instant writ petition.

(2.) THE opposite parties no.3 and 4 filed a SCC Suit No.32 of 1997 against the petitioner for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent in which the petitioner -defendant after filing of the written statement moved an application for amendment in written statement which was rejected by the Judge Small Causes Court and on revision, the learned Revisional Court also dismissed the revision.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite parties no.1 and 2 filed the suit in which it was stated that the opposite party no.3 was the owner of the property in dispute and the opposite party no.3 being trust was exempted from the purview of the U.P. Act No.13, 1972. The petitioner -defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement and set up a case that the trust -deed was a void document and the trust was not the owner of the disputed property. It was stated in the written statement that the owner of the disputed property was Late Lala Raj Kishore and after his death, his nephew Anil Kumar Agarwal became owner of the property and as such the Rent Control Act was applicable to the building. The petitioner -defendant by means of amendment application prayed that in Para -17 of the written statement, the ward 'Dharamshala' be deleted and in its place, residential house be substituted. Similarly, in second line, the word 'Dharamshala' be deleted and the word 'Kothi, be substituted. Apart from this, certain other amendments were sought in the written statement. The learned Judge Small Cause Court by means of the order dated 13.01.2000 partly allowed the amendment application, but refused the amendment sought in para -17 of the written statement on the ground that by means of proposed amendment, the petitioner -defendant wanted to withdraw the admission already made by him. Moreover, the amendment has been sought after a long gap and if the amendment is allowed, it would change the nature of defence. The petitioner -defendant preferred an SCC Revision No.43/2000 which too was dismissed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Faizabad.