A tenant who denies the title of the landlord cannot take the benefit of the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Eviction & Control of Rent) Act, 1950, and is liable to be evicted under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act.

1. - This revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 14th December, 1977 passed by the Munsif City, Jodhpur, whereby the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner in case No. C.O. 102/77 was dismissed by the Munsif City, Jodhpur. The suit aforesaid has been filed by the petitioner for the eviction of the respondent on the ground that the respondent had committed default in the payment of rent. In her written statement filed in the said suit, the respondent has denied that she is a tenant of the petitioner and has stated the premises in question were taken on rent by her from Shri Noor Mohammed. After the filing of the aforesaid written statement, the petitioner moved an application for amendment of the plaint so as to add a ground that respondent, having denied the relationship of the landlord and tenant, cannot take the benefit of the provision of the Rajasthan Premises (Eviction & Control of Rent) Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act". It may be observed that Section 13(1)(f) of the Act provides that the bar against he passing of a decree for eviction of a tenant will not apply in a case where the tenant has renounced his character as such or denied the title of the landlord and the latter has not waived his right or condoned the conduct of the tenant. The Munsif City, by his order dated 14th December, 1977 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint on the view that no purpose would be served by allowing the amendment sought by the petitioner in the plaint in as much as the denial of title of the petitioner by the respondent in her written statement could not afford a ground for obtaining relief in the present suit and that on the basis of the aforesaid denial, the petitioner can bring a fresh suit for the eviction of the respondent. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Munsif City, Jodhpur, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

2. Shri D.K.Parihar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in passing the order dated 14th December, 1977, the Munsif City has committed an error in proceeding on the basis that the denial of the petitioner by the respondent in her written statement cannot afford a ground for obtaining relief in the present suit and that the only course open to the petitioner is to file a suit on that ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in this connection, has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Bhura v. Bahadur Singh, 1976 Rent Control Reporter 546 : 1976 RLW 212, and Premlal v. Jadavchand, 1977(2) Rent Control Reporter 414 : 1977 RLW 265.

3. Shri R.R. Chacha, the learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the revision petition and has submitted that the Munsif had jurisdiction either to allow the amendment in the plaint or to refuse the said amendment and that merely because the Munsif had refused to allow the amendment cannot afford a ground for interfering in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure . The learned counsel has submitted that even if the Munsif had committed an error of law in refusing to allow the amendment of the plaint, such an error could not be regarded on an error falling within the ambit of clause (c) Sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act No. 104 of 1976. In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Harak chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1968 WLN 458. Relying on the provision which has been inserted in Sub-section (1) of Section 115 C.P.C. by Act No. 104 of 1976, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Munsif in the present case does not cause irreparable injury to the petitioner and therefore this Court is not competent to vary or reverse t