LEKHRAJ Vs. XVITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS is landlord's writ petition. Landlord petitioner filed suit for eviction against tenant respondent No. 2 Rajesh Kumar Malhotra before JSCC Meerut in the form of SCC Suit No. 91 of 1989. Relief for recovery of arrears of rent was also sought. In the plaint, it was pleaded that as building in dispute had been constructed within ten years from filing of the suit hence U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the same. The Trial Court/Additional JSCC, Meerut accepted the said plea of the landlord and decreed the suit for eviction through judgment and decree dated 8.9.1994. Against the said judgment and decree revision was filed by tenant respondent No. 2 being SCC Revision No. 242 of 1994. Before the Revisional Court an application seeking amendment in the written statement was filed. The amendment application was allowed by the Revisional Court. Through the amendment a new para was added to the written statement to the effect that in case Court found that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute then tenant was entitled to the benefit of section 114, T.P. Act as he had deposited the entire amount of arrears of rent on the first date. Thereafter, Revisional Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 5.12.1994 allowed the revision; set -aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dated 8.9.1994 and remanded the matter.

(3.) IN my opinion there was absolutely no need to remand the matter by the Revisional Court.