- (1.) The tenant has filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 4th September, 2010 by which the application filed by the tenant in SCC Suit No. 64 of 2002 in which he was a defendant, for incorporating certain amendments was rejected. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 13th October, 2001 by which the Revision filed by him for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed. It is seen from the records of the case that SCC Suit No. 64 of 2002 was filed by M/s. Shakuntala Jagdishwar Charitable Trust against the petitioner for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. A written statement was filed by the petitioner in November, 2002. Subsequently an application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the tenant to the effect that a sum of ' 6,500/- was paid by the tenant by cheque dated 6th August, 1985 but this had not been adjusted. The Judge, Court of Small Causes by the order dated 4th September, 2010 rejected the amendment application and the Revision filed for setting aside the aforesaid order has also been dismissed.
(2.) The Courts below have found as a fact that the evidence have been led and the case was listed for final hearing. The Courts have also found that in the written statement filed by the tenant, it was admitted that the tenancy commenced from 1st September, 1985 but the document which was sought to be filed with the written statement was not referred in the written statement which was filed on 22nd November, 2002. The Courts below have also recorded a finding that the receipts show that the amount was given to Santoshi Mata Mandir but in the receipts this has been deleted by hand and instead it is stated that it is for the rent upto October, 1985. The Courts have also found that the amendment application was highly belated and no satisfactory explanation had been furnished for the enormous delay of five years.
(3.) Even though learned Counsel for the petitioner may be justified in asserting that the merits of the facts sought to be incorporated in the amendment application have not to be examined by the Court while deciding the amendment application but still it is seen that no satisfactory explanation was given by the tenant for this enormous delay of five years in filing the amendment application. The Courts below, therefore, committed no illegality in rejecting the amendment application. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.;