SHIV LAL Vs. THE DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 30th August 1993, whereby respondent No. 1 rejected the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 filed suit No. 3 of 1980 for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner. It was stated that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, is not applicable as the shop in question was constructed in the year 1974. A notice terminating the tenancy was sent to the petitioner on 13.6.1972 demanding arrear of rent. The tenant petitioner did not pay arrears of rent nor vacated the accommodation in question. The petitioner contested the suit and denied the allegations made in the plaint. The Judge, Small Causes Court decreed the suit on 6th March 1993.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a revision against the judgment and decree of the Judge, Small Causes Court During the pendency of the revision he filed an application for amendment of the written statement in which he sought to add a ground that respondent No. 3 was not sole owner of the property and there were other co -owners of the property and the suit filed by the plaintiff -respondent was not maintainable. The respondent No 1 has rejected this application by order dated 30th August 1993. The petitioner has challenged this order in the present writ petition.

(3.) THE suit was filed on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant Respondent No. 2 filed the suit in the year 1980 stating that he is the landlord of the shop in question. This fact was admitted by the petitioner in his written statement. There was no dispute as to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. The question as to whether there are other co -owners of the property in question was hardly relevant Secondly the plea which has been taken as to whether there are co -owners of the property, requires evidence and question of title is to be decided which cannot be permitted to be raised in the revision during its pendency by permitting amendment of the written statement. In case this plea is permitted to be raised, it will raise question of title and will require fresh evidence. In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.