- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition, whose application seeking amendment in the written statement filed at the revisiona/stage has been rejected by the Revisional Court/a. DJ. , Court No. 6, Muzaffarnagar through order dated 20. 3. 2006 passed in S. C. C. Revision No. 15 of 2005. Landlords respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed S. C. C. Suit No. 42 of 2002, Smt. Mahendri Devi and others v. Narendra Kumar and others, against tenant peti tioner and proforma respondents seeking eviction from the tenanted accommo dation, which is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 750/- per month. The shop was de scribed in the map annexed along with the plaint by letters A, B, C and D. Suit was decreed by J. S. C. C/civil Judge, Senior Division, Muzaffarnagar through judgment and decree, dated 24. 3. 2005. Against the said judgment and decree S. C. C. Revision No. 5 of 2005 has been filed. Neither in the original written statement nor at any stage during the trial of the suit, extent of disputed property was disputed by the tenant peti tioner. However, during pendency of revision, tenant petitioner filed an appli cation under Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. seeking amendment in the written state ment. Amendment sought was that a small chabutara (raised platform) in front of the shop was also in tenancy occupation of the tenant and suit was bad for partial eviction and on that ground notice was also bad.
(3.) REVISIONAL Court held that in Paras No. 1 to 3 of the original written statement tenant had admitted that until the shop described by the letters A, B, C and D in the plaint map as in his tenancy occupation, hence he could not be permitted to withdraw that admission. In my opinion, there is absolutely no error in the judgment of the Revisional Court. Absolutely no explanation for not taking the said stand in the original written statement or at the subsequent stage before the Trial Court was given.;