AMREESH KUMAR Vs. JAYA WAL AND 5 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ambrish Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner petitioner and Sri Siddhartha Srivastava, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents.

(2.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 5.12.2017 in SCC Revision No.10 of 2017 (Jaya Wal and others Vs. Ashwani Kumar and another), passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Bareilly whereby the Amendment Application being paper No.14-C and the application for additional evidence being paper No.13-C filed by the plaintiff-respondents, have been allowed.

(3.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly plaintiffs-respondents are owner and landlord of House No.407-D, Shivpuri, Mohalla-Kunwarpur, Bareilly, in which Sri Arendra Pal Saxena was the tenant at monthly rent of Rs.45/-. After his death the tenancy was succeeded by his two sons, namely, Sri Ashwani Kumar and Sri Amreesh Kumar (the defendants). The plaintiffs-respondents instituted a S.C.C. Case No.81 of 1999 (Pradeep Wal and others Vs. Ashwani Kumar and another) which was dismissed by judgment dated 16.2.2017, passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Bareilly. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs-respondents filed S.C.C. Revision No.10 of 2017 (Jaya Wal and others Vs. Ashwani Kumar and another) which is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge IInd, Bareilly. During pendency of the Revision the plaintiff-respondents came across two sale deeds evidencing that the defendant No.1 had purchased and acquired in vacant state a residential building being House No.34 AT/06, Shastri Nagar, Bareilly. They also came across the evidences of electric connection etc. taken by the defendants-petitioner in the aforesaid house. The defendant No.2 has also acquired a house in vacant state at Nadausi Parsakhera, Bareilly. Therefore, the plaintiffs-respondents filed an application 13-C for taking the additional evidence and the application 14-C for necessary amendment in the plaint by adding paragraphs 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D and 8E. They intended to take the stand that since the defendants have acquired residential houses in vacant position, therefore, they are not entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972.