Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a tenant in the property in dispute. It appears that a SCC Suit No. 290 of 1995 has been filed by the landlord for eviction of the petitioner. The dispute arising from the suit ultimately came to this Court in Writ Petition nos. 14223 and 14425 of 2000. Both the said writ petitions have been disposed of by this Court by the order dated 25th July, 2007, by way of settlement between the parties. The rent of the tenanted property has been enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-. Before the Court, learned counsel for the tenant stated that the Rent Control Act might be made applicable on the building otherwise the landlord might initiate eviction proceeding whenever he would want to do so as irrespective of clause (bb), the tenanted accommodations would go outside the purview of U.P. Rent Control Act by virtue of clause (g) of Section 2(1), the Act according to which any building monthly rent of which exceeds Rs. 2,000/- is exempted from the operation of the Act. To the said submission of learned counsel for the tenant, the learned counsel for the land-lord did not have objections. The reliance is being placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lachoo Mal v. Radhey Shyam, AIR 1971 SC 2213 wherein it has been held that even if Rent Control Act is not applicable to a building, parties can, by consent, apply the same thereupon.
(2.) After five years, the land-lord filed Suit No. 5 of 2011 for eviction. The petitioner filed the written statement and in paragraph 20 whereof, it has been stated that in view of Section 2(1)(bb), of the Act No. 13 of 1972, the Suit is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected because in respect of the property in dispute, U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972 is not enforceable. The petitioner moved an amendment application and sought certain amendments in the written statement to the extent as stated in paragraph 3 of the amendment application, which reads as under: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... The said application has been rejected by the Trial court on the same day on the ground that in paragraph 20 of the written statement, the plea that provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable has already been taken and just to delay the proceeding, the amendment application has been moved by the tenant. The order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kanpur Nagar dated 23rd May, 2013 is impugned in the present writ petition.
(3.) Heard Sri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Misra, learned counsel for the respondents.;