M.S.LIBERHAN,J - (1.) THIS order will dispose of the petition challenging the order of the Subordinate Judge granting the permission to amend the written statement.
(2.) THE plaintiff-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) brought a suit for possession on 21st September, 1981, inter alia contending that one Dr. Ved Parkash Aggarwal, was tenant on the premises in dispute and after his death on 10th July, 1981, defendant-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) entered into possession of the premises. The tenancy was not heritable. No right vested in the respondents as legal heirs of the tenant. This suit was contested. A preliminary objection was raised to the effect that the premises in dispute was let out by the adoptive mother of the petitioner on 10th May, 1976, to M/s Aggarwal and Company - a firm doing opticals business, at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. The firm had spent about Rs. 7382/- on the construction of the shop at the instance of Shrimati Kamla Devi, the adoptive mother of the petitioner, and the petitioner had agreed to get the amount adjusted against the rent. Dr. Ved Parkash Aggarwal took the premises on rent as a representative of the firm. Respondent No. 1 claimed that she being the sole surviving partner of the firm M/s. Aggarwal and Company as well as the legal heir of Dr. Ved Parkash Aggarwal, was the tenant of the premises in dispute; and the tenancy was from month to month. She further claimed that the respondents inherited the tenancy. Various other pleas were taken which are irrelevant for the purposes of the decision of this revision petition.
(3.) IN the year 1984, the petitioner sought an amendment of the plaint by adding para 1(a) to the effect, that the shop in dispute had been constructed in the year 1976 and, as such, it was exempted from the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent Eviction) Act. The amendment was allowed and the amended plaint was filed.;