Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Jayant Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ayush Khanna, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.
(2.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for the following relief:- "i) to issue, order or direction to the court to set aside the order dated 09.05.2019 (Ann-5 to the petition) passed by Additional Judge Small Causes Court Ist in Small Causes Case No.311 of 2015 (Ramesh Kumar Hemrajani Vs. Raj Kumar Mulani) as well as order dated 11.07.2019 (Ann-7 to the petition) passed by District Judge Kanpur Nagar in Civil Revision No.52 of 2019 (Raj Kumar Mulani Vs. Ramesh Kumar Hemrajani)." Facts 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the plaintiff-respondent is the owner and landlord of the premises No.107/170-B, F. Road, Jawahar Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. In the said premises certain accommodation has been let out by the plaintiff-respondent to the defendant-petitioner at an agreed monthly rent of Rs.2650/- including taxes. The plaintiff-respondent did not want to continue the tenancy of the defendant-petitioner, therefore, he gave a legal notice to the defendant-petitioner dated 24.09.2015 by registered post determining the tenancy and requiring the tenant to vacate the tenanted accommodation. Since the tenanted portion was not vacated by the defendant-petitioner, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent filed S.C.C. Suit No.311 of 2015 (Ramesh Kumar Hemrajani Vs. Raj Kumar Mulani) on 21.12.2015. The defendant-petitioner filed a written statement dated 19.05.2016 in which he admitted the contents of paragraph nos. 1 & 2 of the plaint. He admitted agreed rate of rent to be Rs.2650/- inclusive of all taxes. In other paragraphs also he admitted this fact. Relevant paragraph nos. 1, 4 & 8 of the written statement dated 19.05.2016 are reproduced below:- "(1) That the contents of para 1 & 2 of the suit as stated is admitted with correction that beside shop and bhandaria on ground floor the defendant is tenant of one 8 x10 sq. feet room situated at first floor of the said premises subject to payment of agreed rent of 2650/- including all of taxes however plaintiff has to proof his statements of para 1 and para 2 of plaint. (4) That the contents of para 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the plaint as stated are not admitted to defendant being incorrect and false. Plaintiff grab a fictitious story to evict the defendant illegally from the tenancy area of she said premise by way of illegal and baseless notice dt. 24.9.15 which has no legal value and on the basis of that the said demand of damages of Rs.20,000/- per month as the prevailing rate of rent is void ab-initio since plaintiff accept the agreed rent of Rs.2650/- per month including taxes after giving the said notice the whole proceeding became infructuous and plaintiff has strict proof of his plaint para 6,7,8 and 9. Defendant is valid tenant of the said premises and is not liable to pay any damages of Rs.36,000/- or 20,000/- per month as demanded by plaintiff. (8) That the Choith Ram Mulani son of Galumal was the tenant of one shop, one bhandaria on ground floor and one room on first floor of the said premises at the rate of 40/- Rs. per month in the year of 1966 and gradually the landlord increases the tax and rent as 50/- Rs., 60/- Rs. and lastly Rs.1500/- in 1996 and till 26.01.2003 at the death of Choith Ram and thereafter the plaintiff and his brother Ashok Kumar became the tenant of the said accommodation and landlord received the rent in cash by their tenants and now the plaintiff received the agreed rent of Rs.1950/- and 700/- as taxes total Rs.2650/- and the present premises fall within the provisions of U.P. Rent Act No.13 and the defendant is protected under the said Act hence the suit is infructuous and liable to be set aside."
(3.) After about 17 months the defendant-petitioner filed an Amendment Application dated 04.10.2017 seeking to amend paragraph nos. 1, 2 & 3 of the written statement. The prayer clause of the Amendment Application is reproduced below:- "(a)That in para 1 of the written statement in line 6 word agreed rent of Rs.2650/- including all the taxes be deleted and in its place the rent is Rs.1950/- and Rs.700/- was paying by the defendant for advance amount, which are received by the plaintiff from the defendant and in such a manner the rent is only 1950/- be added and amended and in para 2 in line 5 after the word 1972 since the rent is 1950/- is being paid to the plaintiff be added and amended and in para 3 in line 4 after the date 24.09.2015 is illegal baseless and the suit is not maintainable by virtue of Section 20 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and no rent was due on the date of issue of notice. In fact the answering defendant is the tenant since the year of 1966, initially the rent was Rs.40/- and the tenancy in the name of the father of the defendant Sri Chhothram, who has been expired in the year 2003 and after the tenancy devolved in the name of the answering defendant and slowly and slowly the rent was increased by the plaintiff and lastly the plaintiff receiving the rent Rs.120/- per month against the rent receipt to the defendant and the he has started to demand more than rent and increased Rs.1950/- at present be added and amended.";