- (1.) Heard M. Pratima Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 16.01.2002 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow, by which the petitioner's application for amendment in the written statement has been dismissed and also against the impugned order dated 04.02.2002 passed by the Incharge District Judge, Lucknow, by which the petitioner's SCC Revision No. 09 of 2002 filed against the order dated 16.01.2002 has been dismissed.
(2.) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a tenant of a shop in the Gurudwara Building owned by Sri Guru Singh Sabha, Gurudwara, Naka Hindola, Lucknow (opposite party no. 1) on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/. The opposite party no. 1 filed SCC Suit No. 23 of 2001 against the petitioner in the Court of opposite party no. 2 for recovery of arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation and ejectment. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 1831/as arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation and other charges along with 9% interest thereon under Section 20(4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the Court of opposite party no. 2 and also advanced rent upto June, 2002. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite party no. 1/owner is only a registered body registered under "The Societies Registration Act, 1860" and is not a "Public Religious Institution", hence is not entitled to be exempted from the purview of the "The Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) and the question of its being a Religious Institution can be decided only by the District Judge.
(3.) The petitioner preferred an application for amendment of the written statement filed in the suit before opposite party no. 2 on 14.08.2001. The opposite party no. 1 filed his objection to the said amendment application stating therein that the said application was filed with intent to cause delay in deciding the suit. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 90 of C. P. C. for obtaining the opinion of the District Judge regarding the charitable nature of the opposite party no. 1 before the opposite party no. 2 on 05.09.2001, but the same is still pending. The allegation of learned counsel for the petitioner is that opposite party no. 2 without thorough hearing of the petitioner's application for amendment of the written statement dismissed it in quite arbitrary manner vide his order dated 16.01.2002 on the ground that the proposed amendments are unnecessary and are covered by the statements made in paragraphs no. 19 and 24 of the written statement and the amendment application has been moved to delay the proceedings.;