KASHI NATH TEWARI Vs. MANGROO LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of proceedings for the amendment of the plaint.

(2.) IN a suit between the landlord and the tenant, eviction was sought by the plaintiff and, according to the plaint allegations, the accommodation in question was a post-1950 construction. IN 1972 the new U. P. Act XIII of 1972 came into operation and S. 39 has extended the benefit of the new Act to the tenants against whom suits for eviction were pending in respect of the buildings to which the old Act did not apply and which came to be covered, for the first time, by the new Act. Section 40 of the Act extends such benefit to the tenants of such buildings which have been brought under the regulation of the new Act for the first time during the pendency of appeals or revisions. The suit in question was filed in 1974 in the court of the Judge, Small Causes, Allahabad. IN the plaint, it was alleged that the house was constructed in the year 1964. The plaintiff sought to amend the pleading to the effect that the construction of the house was started in 1964 and was completed in the year 1966. The application for amendment was rejected on 3rd January, 1976. Admittedly, the plaintiff's counsel was not present when the court rejected the application. Subsequently, an application was moved for recalling the aforesaid order dated 3rd January, 1976. Counsel for the defendant put in objections to the application for recalling the order as well as to the amendment application. On 6th March, 1976, the application for amendment of the plaint (30-C) and the defendant's objection (36-C) to the plaintiff's application dated 22nd January, 1976 (32-C) were taken up and the counsel for the parties were heard. Orders were reserved for 11th March, 1976. On 11th March, 1976, the trial court allowed the amendment application. The defendant felt aggrieved and filed a revision before the lower revisional court but the same was dismissed. Now the defendant has come up in the instant revision and, in support thereof. I have heard Sri. N. S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the defendant-applicant. Sri N. D. Kesri, learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party, has made his submissions in opposition.

(3.) THE revision is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. THE stay order, if any, shall stand automatically vacated and the lower court record is directed to be sent down immediately and without any delay whatsoever. Petition dismissed.