SHITTAL PARSHAD Vs. GYANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The counsel for the landlord has urged that the application for amendment was allowed by the Appellate Authority on payment of Rs. 110/- as costs which costs were accepted by the counsel for the tenant. Therefore, the amendment cannot be challenged in this revision.

(2.) The landlord has filed an application for the ejectment of the tenant on five grounds, one of which was sub-letting. The Rent Controller found that the ground of sub-letting was established but dismissed the ejectment petition because the premises from which the ejectment was sought, were stated to be consisting of two rooms and the verandah which was a part of the premises, was not included therein. Therefore, the Rent Controller was of the view that it was a case of partial ejectment, which was not permissible and consequently, dismissed the ejectment petition. The landlord went up in appeal and before the Appellate Authority filed an application for the amendment of the ejectment application so as to include the verandah also. The amendment was granted as noted in the opening part of this order on payment of costs of Rs. 110/-. Thereafter, by order dated 15.12.1984, the Appellate Authority ordered ejectment of the tenant without upholding the finding of sub-letting and even without mentioning anything about it. On the other hand, it was observed as follows :-

(3.) Then it proceeded to notice the grant of application for amendment of the ejectment petition and since the amendment was carried out and the order of granting amendment remained un-challenged, it was observed that the appeal was bound to succeed and was accepted and the order of ejectment was passed.