AZAD CHAUDHARY Vs. JAI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava (Adv. Roll No. A/A1243) for the defendant-revisionist and Sri Arvind Srivastava (Adv. Roll No. A/A1244) for the plaintiff-respondents.

(2.) This is defendant's revision against the order dated 5.2.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Jhansi/ Judge Small Causes Court in SCC Suit No. 24 of 2013. The said order disposes of two applications. One is an application no.62 Ga filed by the defendant revisionist seeking recall of the order dated 29.01.2016 by which the evidence of the defendant was closed; and the other is application no.66 Ga by which the defendant-revisionist sought amendment in the written statement. Application 62 Ga was allowed and order dated 29.01.2016 was recalled whereas application 66 Ga has been rejected. Therefore this revision is confined to the extent it rejects the application 66 Ga.

(3.) Facts necessary to understand the controversy in issue are that SCC Suit No. 24 of 2013 was filed by the plaintiff-respondents against the defendant-revisionist for eviction of the defendant-revisionist from a shop, which, according to paragraph no.1 of the plaint, was part of House No. 1915 situated at Shivaji Nagar, Kanpur Road, Jhansi, with its boundaries disclosed at the bottom of the plaint. The plaint case was that the plaintiff-landlords were owner of premises No. 1915 and the defendant-revisionist was tenant of a shop situated therein at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, it was pleaded that the premises in dispute was a new construction raised in the year 2004 and was assessed for the first time in the year 2002, therefore, U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable. In paragraph 4 of the plaint it was stated that the tenancy had been terminated by notice dated 20.08.2013, which was served on 20.08.2013 itself to which an incorrect reply was sent on 12.09.2013. A written statement was filed. In paragraphs 1 and 3 of the written statement it was stated that the contents of paragraphs 1 and 3 of the plaint are not accepted and that detailed reply has been given in additional pleas. In the additional pleas of the written statement, in paragraph 10 thereof, it was stated that the defendant is a tenant @ Rs.500 of an unnumbered shop whose boundaries are disclosed at the bottom of the plaint. It was further stated therein that in addition to the plaintiffs, the owner/ landlords of the premises were Kailash Kushwaha, Smt. Kalawati, Smt. Kaushalya, Sunny and Chhotu and that any plea to the contrary was incorrect. In paragraph 14 of the written statement, it was stated that the plea taken in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint was incorrect inasmuch as in the written statement and in the objection filed by the landlord in Original Suit No. 148 of 2013 and in Misc. Case No. 56 of 2013 respectively, it was not specifically pleaded that the construction of the shop was raised for the first time in the year 2006 (2004) and, therefore, the plaintiff-landlords were estopped from taking any such plea which goes contrary to their stand taken in Original Suit No. 148 of 2013 and Misc. Case No. 56 of 2013.