Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who is tenant of a shop situate in Babu Ram market Badaun on a monthly rent of Rs. 28, has filed the present writ petition against the two orders of the court below rejecting the amendment application filed by him to amend the written statement. The S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 1990 was filed against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment on the plea that the plaintiff (respondent No. 3) is the owner and landlord of the shop in question. Default in payment of rent and structural changes in the tenanted accommodation are the grounds on which the eviction has been sought. The petitioner tenant in the written statement denied that he is in arrears of rent or made any alteration in the disputed shop. However, the relationship of landlord and tenant, and the fact that the petitioner is owner and landlord of the disputed shop as pleaded in para 1 of the plaint, was admitted in para 1 of the written statement. Subsequently, an application for amendment of the written statement to incorporate paras 3A and 3B in the written statement to the effect that previously one Siddh Gopal, the father of the plaintiff respondent was the owner/landlord of the suit property and after his death, his widow, four sons and four daughters are heirs and legal representatives and all of them have become joint owners/landlord of the suit property. The other co -owners/ landlords having not joined in the plaint in filing the suit, the plaintiff alone has no right to sue against the defendant and the suit is liable to be dismissed and the suit is bad for non -joinder of the necessary party. The said amendment application was rejected by the trial court by the order dated 13th of October, 1992 and the said order has been confirmed in S.C.C. Revision No. 80 of 1992 by the judgment dated 26th of October, 1993. Challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid two orders, rejecting the amendment application to amend the written statement, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) SHRI S.A. Shah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below have erred in law in rejecting the amendment application and the suit is liable to be dismissed on account of non -joinder of the necessary parties. Elaborating the argument he submitted that the other heirs and legal representatives of Shri Siddh Gopal the father of the plaintiff respondent be added in the array of the parties. I have given careful consideration to the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It may be noted here that in para 1 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that he is the owner and landlord of the shop in question. The contents of the para 1 of the plaint has been admitted in para 1 (a) of the written statement by the defendant. The courts below, thus, have taken a correct view of law that there being an admission made by the petitioner tenant that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, amendment sought for amounts to taking away of the admission, can be allowed. It has been clearly laid down by numerous judicial pronouncements that the amendment introducing the entirely new case and seeking to displace the plaintiff completely from the admission made by the defendant in written statement by substituting certain new paras in the written statement, cannot be permitted.
(3.) THERE is yet another aspect of the case. Section 3(j) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter to referred as the Act) defines the word 'landlord' which means a person to whom rent is payable and Includes, except in Clause (g), the agent or attorney of such person. Meaning thereby the emphasis is on the contract in between landlord and tenant, and question of ownership is not relevant.;