JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Defendant/petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 24.08.2012 passed by JSCC/Civil Judge (SD), Dehradun as well as judgment and order dated 04.12.2013 passed by Revisional Court/7th Additional District Judge, Dehradun whereby amendment application moved by the defendant/ petitioner, herein, was dismissed, has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that plaintiff/respondent, herein, has filed a suit for recovery of rent and eviction against the defendant/petitioner in the court of Civil Judge, (SD), Dehradun, which was registered as SCC Suit No. 29 of 2007. Petitioner/defendant preferred a written statement before the trial Judge wherein in paragraph nos. 10, 11 & 12, in so many words, he contends that he is a tenant of disputed premises and is paying rent @ Rs. 700/- per month to the plaintiff/respondent regularly and he did not make any default. During the pendency of the suit, defendant/petitioner preferred an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment to the effect that plaintiff is not the owner of property, in question, therefore, plaintiff/respondent has absolutely no locus to file suit for eviction against the petitioner. 3. I have heard Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, at length. 4. As per Section 3 (j) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, landlord, in relation to a building, means a person to whom its rent is or if the building were let, would be, payable. 5. In view of specific pleadings in the written statement that petitioner was paying rent to the respondent/plaintiff @ Rs. 700/- per month, therefore, plaintiff/respondent, herein, proved to be a landlord of the building, in question. 6. It is now settled position of law that there is difference between ‘owner’ and ‘landlord’. Landlord may not be owner of the property. However, a person, who lets out a building and rent is being paid to him, therefore, lessor would be treated as landlord and shall be competent to file suit for eviction against the tenant. 7. Proposed amendment is not necessary for fair adjudication of the case. It seems that defendant/petitioner has moved amendment application just to cause unnecessary delay in the proceedings of the suit with ulterior motive to avoid his eviction, therefore, amendment application is misconceived. 7. Proposed amendment is not necessary for fair adjudication of the case. It seems that defendant/petitioner has moved amendment application just to cause unnecessary delay in the proceedings of the suit with ulterior motive to avoid his eviction, therefore, amendment application is misconceived. There seems to be no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment/orders. Consequently, petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,000/-, which is to be paid to Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority within fifteen days from today. 8. CLMA No. 710 of 2014 also stands disposed of accordingly.