SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order passed by Judge, Small Causes Court dated 3.11.2007 by which amendment application filed by plaintiff-respondent has been allowed and revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that amendment has wrongly been allowed in view of fact that in the written statement , a specific plea was taken that Act No.13 of 1972 is applicable and petitioner has complied with the provision of Section 20 Sub-Clause 4 and deposited the total rent. After that plaintiff-respondent moved an application 25-C amending the plaint to this effect that Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable in the building in question that it was constructed in the year 1987 and first time it was assessed to the Municipal Board in the year 1992. In spite of objection raised, amendment application was allowed and plaint was directed to be amended and revisional court has also rejected the claim of petitioner. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of petitioner and have perused the record.
(3.) THE question raised by petitioner that after filing written statement, plaint was amended and this plea regarding non-applicability of the Act has been taken by way of amendment. In my opinion, in case, the Act is not applicable, that has to be proved on the basis of relevant record that Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable. Petitioner is at liberty to lead the evidence accordingly to prove that the building in question comes under the definition of Act No.13 of 1972 by producing the cogent evidences. Therefore, the trial court was justified in allowing the amendment. Further revisional court has also considered the same and has found that question of applicability of Act is pure question of law and is to be decided on the basis of relevant evidence and on the basis of pleadings of the parties. therefore, in case, petitioner has already deposited the admitted rent and if ultimately it is decided that Act No.13 of 1972 is applicable, the benefit of Section 20 Sub Clause 4 will be available to petitioner and if it is decided that Act is not applicable, then petitioner will not be entitled for benefit.;