YOGENDRA SWAROOP SAXENA Vs. REENA AGRAWAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist is defendant in SCC Suit No.80 of 2014 instituted by the plaintiff -opposite parties for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment. The suit is founded on the plea that the demised premises is a new construction and rent is above Rs.2000 per month, consequently, provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable to it. A written statement was filed by the defendant -applicant, in which it is admitted that rent of the demised premises is above Rs.2000 per month and there is no specific denial to the fact that provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable to it. The plaintiff -opposite party has already led his evidence and thereafter, since 8.9.2015 several dates had been fixed permitting the defendant -revisionist to lead evidence. On 8.9.2015 he sought adjournment and whereupon, 29.9.2015 was fixed. Thereafter, 24.11.2015 was fixed, on which date the defendant remained absent and consequently, his evidence was closed. On 8.12.2015 he filed an adjournment application, whereupon 4.1.2016 was fixed. He again filed adjournment application on 4.1.2016 and thereafter filed an application seeking amendment in the written statement on 12.1.2016, which now stands rejected by the impugned order dated 25.2.2016.

(2.) By means of amendment, the revisionist seeks to contend that the plaintiff -opposite party and her husband had purchased the disputed property by registered sale deed dated 28.5.1971 and the construction is of the period prior to 1986 and thus the demised premises is an old one. It is further claimed that a notice was issued by Nagar Nigam Allahabad to the plaintiff -opposite party and that a rent agreement dated 2.12.1985 was entered between the husband of the plaintiff -opposite party and one Subhash Chandra Kesri. In the amendment application it is claimed that these documents came to the notice of the applicant at the time of preparation of the case and in order to bring these documents on record, it has become necessary to seek amendment in the written statement.

(3.) The trial court has rejected the amendment application by holding that the amendment sought is barred by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 as substituted by U.P. Act No.22 of 2002 w.e.f. 1.7.2002. It has further been held that evidence of the defendant -applicant was closed long back and in case the amendment is allowed at this stage, it will result in reopening the trial and thus, it has been found that the amendment sought is malafide.