ALOK v. XITH ADDL D J MEERUT — 1995 DIGILAW 1198 (ALL)

SUDHIR NARAIN, J. 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. 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 in any way amounts to withdrawal of an admission on a question of fact. Respondent no. 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 in any way amounts to withdrawal of an admission on a question of fact. Respondent no. 3 filed an application that on the wrong advice of his counsel he had not claimed the relief of arrears of rent. 10. The 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. 11. In Sekhev Seth v. Smt. Vidyawati Seth and another, AIR 1974 Delhi 234, wherein the suit was filed for declaration but subsequently the plaintiff applied for amendment to the plaint by adding a relief of possession also, the Court held that the amendment of relief for possession was based on the same cause of action e. g. title, it did not introduce a new case and it was just a consequential relief and should be allowed. 12. In Nandan Mohrana v. Lakshman Mohrana and others, AIR 1973 Orissa 42, it was held that where the plaintiff, on the facts pleaded, could have asked for the relief at the time of filing of the suit and was not prayed for, the court could allow addition of the relief by allowing amendment ap plication in the suit. A plaintiff, on the fact stated in the plaint and. the cause shown by it, can for a sufficient reason ask for additional relief by way of filing application for amendment. The fact that the plaintiff had not claimed additional relief at the time of filing of the plaint or omitted to do it, at the subsequent stage of the suit for sufficient cause shown can be permitted to add the relief in the plaint. 13. The fact that the plaintiff had not claimed additional relief at the time of filing of the plaint or omitted to do it, at the subsequent stage of the suit for sufficient cause shown can be permitted to add the relief in the plaint. 13. In Shiv Pujan Rai v. Keshav Prasad Singh, AIR 1924 Patna 310, it was observed that where the plaintiff has framed the suit bona fide believing that consequential relief is not open to him and that he is entitled to a decla ration, the court would be justified in allowing him to amend the plaint even in appeal. A plaintiff, who for the purpose of evading stamp duty, did not claim consequential relief, was permitted to amend the plaint at the appellate stage in the High Court upon its being shown that consequential relief was available and upon his offering to pay the necessary court-fee. 14. In view of the above discussion the present writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .