- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against an order dated 6.2.2001 by which the Prescribed Authority has allowed the amendment application.
(2.) The respondent landlord filed a release application under sections 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the petitioner tenant seeking release of the aforesaid accommodation. The allegations made in the release application were that the petitioner tenant was a monthly tenant at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month and this fact was repeated in more than one paragraph. The petitioner filed an application that in view of the provisions of the Act, the Court did not have any jurisdiction as the Act itself did not apply since the rent, according to the plaint was more than Rs. 2,000/- a month. During the pendency of this application, an amendment application was moved by the respondent landlord stating that by mistake the rent has been shown as Rs. 2,500/- per month instead of Rs. 650/- and therefore, it sought to amend the pleadings to enable the Prescribed Authority to adjudicate the case. The Prescribed Authority on the basis of the case set up by the petitioner in proceedings under section 30 of the Act, has found that by mistake the rate of rent has been disclosed as Rs. 2,500/- instead of Rs. 650/-per month.
(3.) It is apparent from the record and it is not denied on behalf of the petitioner that for the disputed premises the landlord had given a notice in July, 1999 claiming that the tenancy was for Rs. 2,500/- per month apart from water tax etc. Another notice of 9.10.1999 is also available on record again disclosing that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,500/-. The Court below has glossed over this aspect and has allowed the amendment application in an arbitrary manner. The jurisdiction of a Court depends upon the allegations made in the plaint and not upon the defence set up either in those proceedings or anywhere else.;