Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) - Heard Sri Basant Lal Jaiswal and D.K.Tripathi, leaerned counsel for tenant petitioner.
(2.) Rent of the tenanted shop, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner himself is situate on a main road, the in Lucknow is Rs. 1500/- per month. This is the negligible rent which is the main attraction for the tenant petitioner to delay the proceedings in question i.e. Case No. 52 of 2010; Smt. Shanti Devi v. Ramesh Chandra and another , which is release application filed by landlord respondent no.2 Smt. Shanti Devi for eviction of the tenants, petitioner & proforma respondent from the tenanted shop in dispute on the ground of bonafide need. An extremely frivolous amendment application was filed by the tenant petitioner copy of which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. The application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority/Ist Additional JSCC on 15.7.2013 which order has been challenged through this writ petition. The five paragraphs sought to be added in the written statement related to Room, Verandah, Kitchen etc. i.e. residential accommodation alleged to be available to the landlord. It was also stated that a room was intended to be let out by the landlord. Residential accommodation is not at all relevant for considering bonafide need of the landlord for commercial purpose. Accordingly the only purpose of filing application was to delay the proceedings. The Supreme Court in M/s. Revajeetu Builders v. M/s. N. Swami, 2009 (10) SCC 84 : 2009 (3) ARC 502 has held that filing amendment application is most patent device to delay the proceedings of the suit.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a Supreme Court authority reported in Andhra Bank v. ABN Abro Bank, 2007 (3) JCLR 30 (SC) : 2007 SCFBRC 513 : 2007 (3) ARC 410 where it was held that additional ground of defence is available to the defendant. However in the instant case extremely no additional ground has been sought to be pleaded. The facts which were sought to be pleaded were utterly frivolous and immaterial for the purpose of deciding the release application. In Sampath Kumar v. Ayyaknna, 2003 (1) JCL R873 (SC) it was held that amendment application filed by the plaintiff seeking to add new relief could not be rejected on the mere ground of delay. Two authorities of this Court reported in Chheda Singh v. D.J., 1997 (1) JCLR 539 & M/s. Om Rice Mill v. Banaras State Bank, 2000 (2) JCLR 14 cited by learned counsel for petitioner also do not help the petitioner.;