- (1.) The present writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 29.8.2011 passed by Respondent No. 1, Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut in SCC Revision No. 1 of 2011 upholding the order dated 7.1.2010 passed by the Respondent No. 2, Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut in SCC Suit No. 97 of 2007 whereby the amendment application of the Plaintiff Respondent No. 3 (landlord) for amending the plaint was allowed. Brief facts of the case are as follows.
(2.) The Plaintiff-Respondent No. 3 instituted a SCC Suit No. 97 of 2007 on 24.9.2007 before the Respondent No. 2 praying for a decree of dispossession on the ground of default in payment of rent, recovery of damages etc. and also on the ground of material alteration in the disputed premises. The petitioner filed a written statement to the aforesaid suit denying the plaint allegations of the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 3.
(3.) During the pendency of the trial, the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 3 moved an amendment application dated 2.7.2009 praying to amend the plaint by incorporating para 13 claiming damages for the use and occupation of the disputed premises at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month for the period subsequent to the termination of tenancy on the basis of the valuer's report. The valuer's report was mainly based on the circle rates notified by the District Magistrate. The petitioner filed his objection to the said amendment application. The trial court by order dated 7.1.2010 allowed the amendment application. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the tenant-petitioner preferred SCC Revision No. 1 of 2011 before the Respondent No. 1. The said SCC Revision was dismissed by the lower revisional court by order dated 29.8.2011. Hence the present writ petition.;