NEW INDIA FERTILIZERS Vs. A.D.J.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed an interim order dated 20.2.2006, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Barabanki while adjudicating the S.C.C. No. 1 of 2004, Smt. Kavlta Gupta v. New India Fertilizers. A suit for recovery of rent and ejectment of the tenant from the premises in dispute was Instituted by the landlord, Smt. Kavita Gupta before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Barabanki. Pleadings were exchanged between the parties and an amendment was sought by the landlord on 12.4.2005 to which objections were filed by the tenant -petitioners. The amendment was allowed after inviting objections from the tenant. A legal plea was taken by the landlord that the premises in question is not covered under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and since the monthly rent was Rs. 4,490 the provisions of Sections 24 and 30 of Rent Control and Eviction Act, are not applicable. It is relevant to mention here that an additional written statement was also filed by the petitioner -tenant. The relevant paras 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the additional written statement (a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure -4 to the writ petition) are quoted below: iSjk 1&;g fd etewutks tfj;s rjehe mlh nkok esa c iSjk 2&;g fd izfroknh esllZU;w bf.M;k QfVZykbtlZ ikVZujf'ki QeZ gS ftlds ikVZulZ ljtw izlkn xqIrk] vksedqekj xqIrk iq= ljtw izlkn xqIrk ,oa Jherh eUtw xqIrk iq=h Jh deykdkUr xqIrkiRuh Jh v#.k dqekj xqIrk gS rFkk ikVZulZfli dk dkedkt lHkh ikVZulZ ds tfj;sgksrk gS bl dkj.k mijksDr vkse dqekj xqIrk ,oa Jherh eatw xqIrk ikVZulZ dksokfnuh }kjk uksfVl fnukafdr 21 -2 -2004 ugha fHktokbZ xbZ bl dkj.k og voS/kkfud gSrFkk mDr vkse dqekj xqIrk ,oa Jherh eatw xqIrk dks mDr okn esa i{kdkj Hkh ughacuk;k x;k gS ftlds vHkko esa ,oa mudks uksfVl u fn;s tkus ds dkj.k mDr okniks'k.kh; ugha gS rFkk blh fcuk ij [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS A iSjk 3&;g fd nkok esaukuTokbaMj vkQ uslsljh ikVhZt dks nks'k gS tks fd vkse dqekj xqIrk ,oaJherh eatw xqIrk ikVZulZ dks uksfVl u fn;s tkus ds dkj.k D;wjsfcy Hkh ugha gS A iSjk 4&;g fd izfroknh eselZU;w bf.M;k QfVZykbtlZ ,oa ikVZulZ ljtw izlkn xqIrk] vkse dqekj xqIrk ,oa Jherheatw xqIrk us fdjk;k U;k;ky; Jheku flfoy tt egksn;] tw0fM0 dksVZ ua0 13]ckjkcadh ij tek fd;k ftldk eqdnek uEcj ,e,ulh 48 lu~ 2003] eselZ U;w bf.M;kQfVZykbtlZ vkfn cuke Jherh dfork xqIrk gS tks i=koyh ryc gksdj U;k;ky; Jheku thij vkbZ gS A mDr ,e,ulh okn la[;k 48 lu~ 2003 esa fnukad 11 -12 -2005 dks Jherhdfork xqIrk mifLFkr Hkh gks pqdh Fkh rFkk mDr okn esa fdjk;k tek gksus dhtkudkjh ds i'pkr Hkh xyr okd;kr fn[kykdj okn esa uksfVl fnukafdr 21 -2 -2004okfnuh }kjk fHktokbZ xbZ ijUrq ikVZulZ vkse dqekj xqIrk ,oa Jherh eatw xqIrk dsikl dksbZ uksfVl ugha HkstokbZ xbZ rFkk xyr okd;kr fn[kykdj izLrqr okn nk;j fd;kx;k bl izdkj pwafd izfroknh ,oa vkse dqekj xqIrk ,oa Jherh eUtw xqIrk izLrqr oknds le; fMQkYVj gh ugh Fks vkSj u muds mij dksbZ fdjk;k cdk;k gh Fkk rFkk ikVZujvkse dqekj xqIrk ,oa Jherh eUtw xqirk uksfVl ds vHkko esa ,oa mDr okn esa i{kdkju gksus ds dkj.k viuk i{k gh izLrqr ugha dj lds A bl dkj.k izLrqr okn ftl izdkjnk;j fd;k x;k gS iks'k.kh; esUVsuscqy gh ugha gS A

(3.) AFTER going through the above material, the Courts below had dismissed the amendment application, paper No. 360 on 20.2.2006, giving cause of action to the petitioners to file this writ petition.