Back
1995 Supreme(All) 1162
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.N.Agarwal
ALOK
Versus
XITH ADDL D J MEERUT
Decided On : 23 November 1995
Civil Misc. W. P. No. 20795 of 1995
Kripa Shankar Singh, R.K.Jain,
A plaintiff is entitled to add or delete the relief by incorporating a relief in the plaint unless it changes the nature of the suit.
Headnote:
AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - U. P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 20 - Amendment of plaint to add relief of arrears of rent - Permissibility - Plaintiff entitled to add or delete relief by incorporating a relief in the plaint unless it changes the nature of the suit - Necessary facts already stated in the plaint - Petitioner has yet not filed any written statement - Amendment allowed.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner on the allegation that the shop in question is a new construction and is not covered under the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Plaintiff later filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint by adding a relief claiming arrears of rent since 1st June 1990. The application was allowed by the Judge Small Causes Court and the revision against the order was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to add or delete the relief by incorporating a relief in the plaint unless it changes the nature of the suit. The nature of the suit has not been changed. Necessary facts were already stated in the plaint. The petitioner has yet not filed any written statement. The amendment of the plaint was therefore allowed.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to amend the plaint to add a relief of arrears of rent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles: - A plaintiff is entitled to add or delete the relief by incorporating a relief in the plaint unless it changes the nature of the suit. - The nature of the suit has not been changed. - Necessary facts were already stated in the plaint. - The petitioner has yet not filed any written statement.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31. 8. 1994 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, respondent No. 2, allowing the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 and the order dated 4. 5. 1995 affirming the said order in revision passed by respondent No. 1.
2. The petitioner is a tenant of shop No. 96/3 in Building No. 96, Mohalla Kailash Puri, District Meerut. Respondent No. 3 filed Suit No. 200 of 1992 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut for ejectment of the petitioner on the allegation that the shop in question is a new construc tion and is not covered under the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regula tion of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act ). The suit was filed on 25th July, 1992.
3. In the plaint it was stated that the petitioner is a tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 600 and further he was liable to pay Rs. 500/- annually towards electricity charges. In para 3 of the plaint it was stated that the defendant failed to pay the rent since 1st June, 1990 and also the electricity charges as agreed by the defendant. In para 8 of the plaint, however, it was stated that the defendant is not claiming the rent from the defendant but seeking relief of ejectment.
4. Respondent No. 3 filed an application dated 1-2-1994 seeking amend ment of the plaint by adding a relief claiming arrears of rent since 1st June 1990. This application was allowed by the Judge Small Causes Court by Order dated 31st August 1994. The petitioner filed a revision against the said order and the revision has been dismissed on 4-5-1995.
5. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. K. Jain, Learned Counsel for the respondent.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity to file objection and without giving such an opportunity the court acted illegally in allowing the application.
7. It is not denied that the copy of the amendment application was served on the counsel for the petitioner was granted time to file objection but no objection was filed. The petitioner has filed the copy of the order-sheet as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. On the perusal of the order-sheet it is clear that the application for amendment was taken up on 21st April 1994. It was directed to be taken up on 15th May 1994. On 15th May 1994 it was again adjourned and thereafter various dates were fixed. The petitioner had never filed any objection. In the grounds of revision also it has not been stated that the court had not granted time to file objection. The order of Judge Small Causes Court also indicates that the petitioner had not filed any objection. The petitioner was thus afforded opportunity to file objection and if he had not filed any objection it cannot be said that he was not afforded opportunity to raise objection against the amendment application.
8. Lamed counsel for the petitioner then urged that the respondent no. 3 had abandoned his claim in the plaint and thereafter he cannot seek the same relief which he had abandoned by way of moving application for amendment of the plaint.
9. Respondent no. 3 had stated necessary facts regarding the arrears of rent. In para 3 of the plaint it was stated that the defendant was liable to pay the rent for the period since 1st June 1990 but he did not pay the rent. A notice was also given to him demanding arrears of rent on 8th June 1992, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1-A to the writ petition. Respondent no. 3 had claimed rent for the period since 1st June 1990 from the petitioner. The necessary facts as to whether the petitioner was in arrears of rent from 1st June 1990 had already been stated in the plaint. Respondent no. 3 had not withdrawn any admission of any fact in the amendment applica tion. The fact that respondent no. 3 had earlier decided not to claim the relief of rent and subsequently claims the relief of rent does not i
