Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for respondent.

2. Sri Dayal, learned counsel for respondent stated at the bar that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit and the matter may be heard and decided at this stage under the Rules of the Court on the basis of material on record. Accordantly, I proceed to decide this case at this stage finally with the consent of learned counsels for parties under the Rules of the Court.

3. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.7.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Saharanpur dismissing petitioner’s SCC Revision No. 56 of 2011 and confirming Trial Court’s order dated 26.9.2011 passed in SCC Suit No. 60 of 2001 allowing Application No. 98-C of the plaintiff-respondent permitting an amendment in the plaint on the ground that such amendment would not change the nature of the suit and, therefore, can be accepted on payment of a cost of Rupees one hundred.

4. The facts giving rise to the present dispute, in brief, are that plaintiff-respondent filed Small Cause Suit No. 60 of 2001 against the petitioner-defendant, Suraj Prakash, seeking his eviction from the shop in which petitioner-defendant is a tenant. The eviction of petitioner-defendant was sought on the ground that he has committed default in payment of rent on account whereof tenancy has been terminated and he is liable for ejectment. The suit was filed vide plaint dated 3/18.7.2001. The suit proceeded for trial and statement of Iftikar Ahmad, P.W. 1 was recorded on 19.10.2002 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition).

5. Petitioner-defendant after receiving the notice put in his appearance and filed written statement dated 1.10.2003 contesting the suit. During the pendency of suit, Mutwalli of plaintiff-respondent-Waqf died whereupon an application for substitution/impleadment was filed by Iftikar Ahmad, son of erstwhile Mutwalli Late Swalehabad alleging himself to be the Mutwalli of the Waqf. The application was contested by petitioner-tenant but the Trial Court allowed the same by order dated 20.9.2006 and the revision filed thereagainst was dismissed on 10.1.2008.

6. The petitioner-tenant brought the matter before this Court in Civil Misc. Application No. 336 of 2008 (under Article 227 of the Constitution) wherein an interim order was passed on 11.4.2008 to the following effect:

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the tenant challenging the orders passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court allowing the amendment/Substitution application filed by the plaintiff-landlord.

The property is that of a Waqf. The applicant has not paid any rent since 1996. A prayer was made on behalf of the applicant that entire outstanding rent up to date shall be deposited within a period of two months from today and he shall also pay regular monthly rent.

In such view of the matter, two months’ time is allowed to the applicant to deposit the entire outstanding arrears of rent with the Judge, Small Causes Court, Saharanpur within two months from today. In case, the amount is deposited, the landlord is at liberty to withdraw the same.

List/put up this case on 9th July, 2008.

In the meantime, Counter and rejoinder-affidavit may be exchanged between the parties. Till the next date of listing, proceedings of the JSCC Suit No. 60 of 2001 shall remain stayed, subject to the condition that applicant deposits the entire outstanding rent up to date within two months from today and continues to pay regular monthly rent. In case of default, the interim order shall stand vacated and the proceedings shall be resumed by the Small Causes Court.”

7. Record of the above case shows that the above interim order ceased on 30.11.2010 was not extended.

8. Plaintiff-respondent, thereafter, on 17.8.2011 moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. in respe