Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Komal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent.
The writ petition is directed against the order rejecting the amendment application in S.C.C. Suit and the revisional order upholding the same. Respondent had filed S.C.C. Suit for arrears of rent and eviction of the petitioner. In the said suit, petitioner filed written statement inter alia contending that he is the tenant of the accommodation, the owner and landlord of which was one Smt. Asha Anand and that he has not received any information from her that the accommodation has been transferred to the respondent nor any proof of ownership despite demand has been produced by the respondent. Subsequently, petitioner moved an application for amendment so as to add paragraph 23-A to the written statement alleging that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as he was in doubt about the ownership of the accommodation, he had started depositing rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 vide application dated 23.12.97, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 297 of 1997.
The court below rejected the aforesaid amendment application apparently for the reason that there was direction of the High Court to decide the suit expeditiously within a period of 4 months though an additional reason that the question of title is not to be gone in the suit and therefore such an amendment as prayed for is not necessary was also assigned. The Revisional Court decline to interfere with the order on the ground that the averments sought to be included by adding paragraph 23A to the written statement are just the repetition of the earlier facts.
After having gone through the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner and the amendment application, I find that the courts below are not at all justified in rejecting the amendment application. The amendment is only by way of a clarification. It is true that certain allegations which have already been made in the written statement have been repeated but at the same time a new fact that the petitioner has started depositing rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 was also sought to be brought on record, which was left out from being included in the written statement. The aforesaid fact is a relevant fact for the adjudication of the dispute. The addition of such a fact in no way was likely to cause any prejudice to the respondent.
In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the amendment prayed for was liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 22.5.2010 and 11.8.2010 are quashed. The petitioner is permitted to incorporate paragraph 23A in the written statement by 4th of October, 2010. The court below is directed to conclude the hearing of the suit most expeditiously preferably within a period of 3 months from 4th October 2010. It is made clear that the petitioner would cooperate and would not take any unnecessary or long adjournment.
It is also made clear that this court has not permitted the parties to adduce fresh evidence which in fact had already been recorded and closed inasmuch as the matter was being fixed for final hearing.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 16.9.2010 piyush