MUKTESHWAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Order dated 25.9.1996, passed by the revisional court in S.C.C. Revision No. 43 of 1995, Murari Lal v. Mahesh Chandra and Ors., whereby learned Additional District Judge rejected the application for amendment in the written statement moved by the defendants -revisionists.
(2.) HEARD Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. N. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. At this stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of finally. The controversy involved in this petition is very short. A suit for eviction of defendants and recovery of arrears of rent and damages was filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Khurja (Bulandshahr). The defendants filed written statement and contested the suit on several grounds. After having heard counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record learned Judge. Small Causes decreed the suit with costs.
(3.) THE defendants filed S.C.C. Revision No. 43 of 1995 and during pendency of the revision, the defendants felt necessity to amend their written statement in view of the Full Bench of this Court decision in the case of Nootan Kumar v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Banda and Ors., 1993 (2) ARC 204 and prayed for adding para 17A in the written statement and para 8A in the memorandum of revision. In other words, the defendants wanted to raise a plea that the landlords let out the accommodation in dispute to the defendants without any allotment Order and as such, the tenancy was void. An objection was also filed on behalf of the plaintiff.;