- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. Heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, Senior Advocate for the revisionist.
(2.) THE suit was filed in the year, 1997 by the opposite party for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent, in which the rent was claimed at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. An application for amendment was moved to add paragraph 8-A to the plaint for pleading that according to the agreement after the expiry of 3- 1/2 years the rent from 5-12-2000 has enhanced to Rs. 2343. 75 paise per month and the opposite party is entitled to recover rent at that rate and also water tax on that amount. THE application for amendment has been allowed. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred. It is contended that by the amendment, the suit will come out of the purview of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 in so far as the Act does not apply to the premises fetching more rent than Rs. 2,000/- per month. Learned Counsel has referred to Nand Kishore Marwahv. Smt. Samundari Devi. It was observed in this case that the rights of the parties will be determined on the basis of the rights available to them at the date of the suit. There is no dispute regarding the above principle. However, the amendment claiming enhancement of the rent cannot be rejected. The opposite party has not pleaded that U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 does not apply to the premises in suit. Even if, this fact is pleaded, the revisionist can say that the rights of the party should be decided from the date of the suit. The amendment should not be refused on that ground.
(3.) THE question is as to at what rate the opposite party is entitled to rent and, whether the premises in suit shall be covered by U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 or not shall be decided by the trial Court. With the above observations, the revision petition is disposed of finally. Revision disposed of. .;