S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Tenant petitioner is defendant in S.C.C. Suit No. 47 of 2004 which has been instituted by landlord respondent and is pending before J.S.C.C., Jhansi. Case of the landlord in the suit is that the building has been constructed in the year 1986 (if the building is constructed after April 1985 Rent Control Act i.e. U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable after 40 years otherwise after ten years). In the original written statement, defendant contended that building was constructed in the year 1980. Thereafter through amendment application, he sought to change the figure from 1980 to 1984. The case of the petitioner was that it was merely a typing error in the reply notice as well as in the written statement that instead of 1984 year of construction was mentioned as 1980. The amendment application was filed after completion of oral evidence of plaintiff but before start of evidence of defendant. Trial Court through order dated 18.1.2006 rejected the amendment application. Revision filed against the same being S.C.C. Revision No. 28 of 2006 also met the same fate and was dismissed by District Judge, Banda on 27.7.1986 giving rise to the instant writ petition.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondent who has appeared through caveat. The Courts below mainly rejected the amendment application on the ground of delay and on the ground that evidence had started. It was also observed that no plausible reason was given by the defendant petitioner for not taking the plea in the initial written statement.
(3.) THE defendant had stated that wrong date of construction was a result of typing mistake which was sought to be corrected through amendment. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff respondent has vehemently argued that the sole purpose of filing amendment application was to delay the proceeding.;