SHASHI KANT GUPTA,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order dated 2.5.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Room No. 10, Kanpur Nagar, Respondent No. 1 in SCC Revision No. 66 of 2010 whereby the order dated 27.5.2010 passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Respondent No. 2 in Suit No. 174 of 2003 (Gyan Chandra Hajela Vs. Harish Daulat Ram) allowing the amendment application filed by the landlord Respondent No. 3 has been upheld.
(2.) A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the Respondent No. 3 in the year 2003. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint and, inter alia, to incorporate the following amendment to the original plaint of the plaintiff; "7A". That the market value of the disputed accommodation in the year 2007 is Rs. 4,36,000/-. The plaintiff is entitled to enhance the rent @ 1% per month of the said market value i.e. Rs. 4360/- per month, and as the defendant's tenancy has already been terminated he is liable to pay the damages of use and occupation of the tenanted accommodation with the same rate i.e. Rs. 4360/- per month. "7B". That during the pendency of the present suit, as per view of the Hon'ble High Court the rent as well as the damages of the use and occupation of the accommodation will be enhanced with the rate of 1% per month of the market value of the tenanted accommodation. Therefore, the plaint is required to be amended accordingly." The petitioner filed his objection against the proposed amendment but the trial court by order dated 27.5.2010 allowed the amendment application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 27.5.2010, the petitioner preferred a SCC Revision No. 66 of 2010 which was dismissed by the revisional court by order dated 2.5.2011. Hence, the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the courts below has not considered the fact that the amendment application in question is a third amendment application which clearly indicates the motive of the plaintiff-Respondent No. 3. It has been further submitted that the said amendment application has been filed only to harass the petitioner and he was not interested in getting the suit finally disposed of. It has further been submitted that the lower court did not consider the fact that the Respondent No. 3 has sought the amendment of the arrears on the ground of damages claimed in the year 2003 in the present suit and the circle rate which has been determined in the year 2007 has a prospective effect and not retrospective effect. It has further been submitted that the amendment sought by the plaintiff is not only beyond the purview of UP Act No. 13 of 1972 but also beyond the pecuniary limits of the trial court.;