- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is tenants writ petition against whom suit for ejectment filed by landlord respondents in the form S. C. C. Suit No. 908 of 1984 pending before Additional J. S. C. C, Kanpur Nagar. In para-7 of the plaint, (copy of which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit), it was stated that after adjusting the amount deposited under Section 30 of the Act by the tenants, rent of Rs. 950 w. e. f. 1-1-1982 to 28-4- 1984 was due. Later on an amendment application was filed seeking to substitute the figure of para-7 of the plaint. In the said amendment application the only reason, which was given for seeking amendment, was that it was necessary to get the plaint amended. Through amendment the figure of 950 mentioned in para-7 of the plaint was sought to be substituted by the figure 6,290. Some more figures were also sought to be substituted. The amendment was allowed by the trial Court by order dated 14-11-1988. The revision filed by the petitioner against the said order being SCC Revision No. 120 of 1988 was also dismissed on 31-8- 1990. Hence, this writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the landlord-respondent has argued that in the notice the rent claimed was Rs. 6,906/- hence the figure of 950 in para-7 of the plaint was a typing error. This argument cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, in the amendment application it was not mentioned that there was any typing error in the initial plaint. Secondly, in the notice it was mentioned that till the date of notice i. e. 23-3-1984 no amount deposited by the tenants under Section 30 of the Act had been received by the plaintiff-landlord while in para 7 of the plaint as filed initially it was clearly mentioned that the amount deposited by the tenants under Section 30 of the Act had been adjusted by the landlord. This clearly meant that in between the notice and suit landlord received the amount deposited by the tenants under Section 30 of the Act, hence in the notice higher amount as arrears of rent was mentioned that the amount mentioned in the plaint as due towards the arrears of rent (plaint was filed on 13-10-1984 i. e. after seven months of notice ). There is one more glaring discrepancy which learned Counsel for the landlord has not been able to explain and that is that prayer clause of the plaint was not got amended. In the prayer clause decree for recovery of only Rs. 950/- as arrears of rent was prayed. Accordingly I am of the opinion that through amendment plaintiffs sought to withdraw the admission which was not permissible. Writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders and judgment passed by both the Courts below are set aside the amendment sought by the plaintiffs is rejected.
(3.) SINCE the suit is pending since 1984 hence trial Court is directed to decide the said suit expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. If any adjournment is sought by the tenant-petitioners the same may be granted on payment of heavy cost which in no case shall be less than 500/- per adjournment. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Court concerned on 31-3-2004 on which date the trial Court shall fix a date for evidence/hearing of the suit. Petition allowed. .;