Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.3.1997 passed by the trial court allowing the amendment application and the order of respondent No. 1 dated 16.9.1997 affirming the said order in revision. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 3 filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 300/ - per month and was further liable to pay Rs. 150/ - towards house tax and Rs. 31.25 towards water tax. He asserted that provision of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not applicable as the building in question was assessed with effect from 1.4.1981. The petitioner filed written statement denying the allegation contained in the plaint. It was stated that the shop in question was let out to the defendant in the year 1976 and the provisions of Act No. XIII of 1972 was applicable. The trial court dismissed the suit on 31.8.1991. Respondent No. 3 filed a revision against this order. The revision was allowed and the case was remanded. The petitioner preferred a writ petition against the order of the Revisional Authority in remanding the matter. The writ petition was dismissed on 8.4.1997.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the case before the Judge Small Causes Court, respondent No. 3 filed an application for addition of paragraph 4 -A in the plaint which is as follows: (4 -A) That in the alternative it is submitted that since the building bearing Municipal No. 28/12A, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad has several tenancies besides the shop (godown) in question and its monthly rental is over Rs. 3000/ - and as such too in view of the amendment in Clause (2)(1)(g) the building is exempted from the application of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The aforesaid amendment has been incorporated with effect from 26.9.1994 during the pendency of the suit. As such the same is applicable in the present case as well. The petitioner filed objection to the aforesaid amendment application. The Judge Small Causes Court allowed the amendment vide order dated 23.7.1997. The petitioner preferred a revision against this order. The revision has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.9.1997. These orders have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri N.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent.;