- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. The opposite party filed SCC Suit No. 34 of 1995 for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent against the revisionist which is pending in the Court of JSCC (District Judge), Kanpur Nagar. In the suit the revisionist moved an application for amendment in the written statement. The said application had been rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 7-5-2002. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.
(2.) I have heard Sri K. L. Grover, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri R. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party. It is contended by Sri K. L. Grover, learned Counsel for the revisionist that the amendment is necessary; that the proposed amendment is that the opposite party has accepted rent till 30-6- 1995 and, therefore, the suit is barred by the principles of estoppel and acquiescence. The other amendment sought is that the Nagar Nigam has realised tax of the building from the revisionist; that the opposite party landlord is liable to pay tax and, therefore, the tax may be adjusted and as the rent has been accepted in the form of the tax, the suit is not maintainable. Learned Counsel in support of the argument referred to certain decisions. The first is Sant Ram Agarwal v. Civil Judge, Mohanlal Ganj, Lucknow, AIR 1994 Allahabad 99. In this case, it was observed that the amendment should not be refused on technical ground. However, there is no observation in this judgment to support the argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionist.
(3.) THE other case referred to is Ishwardas v. THE State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 551. It was observed by the Apex Court that there is no bar against an appellate Court permitting amendment of pleadings so as to enable a party to raise a new plea. All that is necessary is that the Appellate Court should observe the well known principles subject to which amendments of pleadings are usually granted. It was held that one of the circumstances which will be taken into consideration before an amendment is granted is the delay in making the application seeking such amendment. This decision therefore, does not support the revisionist. On the other hand, it support the opposite party. The other case referred to is Mulk Raj Batra v. The District Judge, Dehradun, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 24. In this case, part of amendment was rejected by the trial Court. It was held that order rejecting amendment is erroneous. The finding was recorded by the Apex Court on the basis of the facts and is no help to the revisionist.;