DEEPAK KATYAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.3.1997 passed by the trial court allowing the amendment application and the order of respondent No. 1 dated 16.9.1997 affirming the said order in revision. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 3 filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 300/ - per month and was further liable to pay Rs. 150/ - towards house tax and Rs. 31.25 towards water tax. He asserted that provision of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not applicable as the building in question was assessed with effect from 1.4.1981. The petitioner filed written statement denying the allegation contained in the plaint. It was stated that the shop in question was let out to the defendant in the year 1976 and the provisions of Act No. XIII of 1972 was applicable. The trial court dismissed the suit on 31.8.1991. Respondent No. 3 filed a revision against this order. The revision was allowed and the case was remanded. The petitioner preferred a writ petition against the order of the Revisional Authority in remanding the matter. The writ petition was dismissed on 8.4.1997.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the case before the Judge Small Causes Court, respondent No. 3 filed an application for addition of paragraph 4 -A in the plaint which is as follows:

(3.) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri N.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent.