VIJAY PAL SHARMA Vs. SMT. KALPANA BHARDWAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri D.R.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party.

(2.) This is a revision against the order of the trial court in SCC Suit No.1 of 2013 by which the amendment sought in the plaint under O.6R.17 C.P.C. has been allowed.The amendment which has been sought in para 12 of the suit is with regard to the valuation of the suit calculated at Rs. 5,820.00 which has been bifurcated in three portions out of which Rs. 43,200.00 is the arrears of rent for three years , Rs. 600.00 is for expenses of notice and Rs. 14,400.00 is damages of one year of rent. Totaling the aforesaid amounts, it comes to Rs. 58,200.00 whereas in para 12 while mentioning the valuation of the suit it has been mentioned as Rs. 5,820.00 whereas according to the fraction given in the same paragraph it ought to have been Rs. 58,200.00. Therefore, it appears that while mentioning the figure of Rs. 58,200.00 one zero has been left out.

(3.) Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist submits that Sec. 20 Sub clause (4) of the U.P.Urban Buildings v(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the suit for eviction and arrears of rent would fail the moment , the arrears of rent are paid. Considering the amount mentioned as correct, the same has been paid and now by amendment one more zero is sought to be added which is not permissible under law. The second amendment that has been sought is with regard to the house tax and water tax. Although the same was claimed but the percentage was not mentioned which has now been mentioned as 13%.