MUNNA LAL Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE RAMPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11. 11. 2008 by which the amendment application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the revisional court. The respondent being a landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act no. XIII of 1972 against the petitioner for release of the said accommodation. After filing the written statement this fact has not been stated in the written statement as to whether in the building in question U. P Act No. XIII of 1972 is applicable or not. After pleading was completed, the Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 15. 4. 2008 has allowed the application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a revision. When the revision was pending, an application for amendment was filed amending the written statement regarding applicability of the Act upon the building in question. The revisional court after consideration has rejected the application. One of the grounds of rejection of the application was delay and another ground was that admittedly the building in question was constructed in the year 1989 which was proved at the time of pendency of the matter before the Prescribed Authority. Further finding has been recorded that it is only to delay the proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. Municipal Town Council reported in 2007 (1) AWC 627 (SC ). Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C. P. C. which has been in force from 2002 is never applicable to the present case as the suit was filed in the year 1995. Further reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Andhra Bank Vs. ABN Amro Bank N. V. and others reported in (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 167. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court has no power to look into the merits of the amendment and reliance has been placed upon para 5 of the aforesaid judgement which is quoted below: further reliance has been placed in the case of Baldev Singh and others versus Manohar Singh and another. reported in 2006 (6) Supreme Court Cases 498 and reliance has been placed upon para 9 of the aforesaid judgment which is quoted as below: Taking support of the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the High Court or the court below should be extremely liberal in granting prayer for amendment of the pleading unless and until serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. In view of the aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that amendment by the petitioner was permissible under law and the revisional court has illegally rejected the same. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of record it is clear from the record that the petitioner being a tenant was fully aware regarding applicability of the Act at the time when he filed the written statement. It is not the case pleaded by the petitioner that this fact was not in his knowledge when he filed the written statement and the suit was decreed and before the revisional court this fact was brought by way of present amendment. Admittedly the suit was filed in the year 1994 and in 2008 the amendment application was filed. If such amendment is allowed, it will change the total nature of the suit and the Prescribed Authority before whom the application was decided against the petitioner, will have no jurisdiction to try the suit. Therefore, the court below was justified in rejecting the application. Further in Baldev Singh's case (Supra) the Apex Court has held that the grant for amendment of pleading should be granted liberally unless and until injustice or the irreparable loss is caused to the other side. The Supreme Court itself has interpreted regarding the serious injustice and irreparable loss. In the present case also the suit was filed in the year 1995 and it was contested by the petitioner being a tenant. Therefore, if the amendment before the revisional court by the petitioner is allowed, the respondent-landlord will face serious injustice and irreparable loss to the effect that the application under Section 21 (1) (a)of the Act filed before the Prescribed Authority itself will not be maintainable and the order passed will be without jurisdiction. The purpose of amendment is not to change the nature of the suit at a belated stage. In case of Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2005 Page 3353, Apex Court has clearly interpreted the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 including the proviso and has held that such type of amendment is not permissible. In view of the aforesaid fact , I find not merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order is passed as to costs. .