- (1.) THIS revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. is directed against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 2nd july, 1977, whereby the application dated 2nd March, 1977 seeking amendment of the plaint was rejected. It was alleged in the plaint that the suit premises were constructed in the month of April, 1971 and that in view of the then existing law the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) did not apply to the premises which were constructed after 1st June, 1951 for a period of seven years from the date of completion. This provision contained in Section 2 (e) of the Act was deleted by the Ordinance dated 29th Sept. 1975. This ordinance was thereafter replaced by an Act. The contention of the plaintiff is that in view of this legislative change it has become necessary to amend the plaint to bring it in conformity to the requirements of the provision of Section 13 of the Act. The learned trial Court held that if the proposed amendment is allowed then the nature and character of the suit would be changed and as such, rejected the application for amendment on 2nd July, 1977. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the present revision petition.
(2.) ON behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner, it was contended that as the plaint was filed on 24th July, 1975, it was in conformity to the requirements of the transfer of Property Act only, and as the provisions of the Act did not apply, there was no occasion for making a detailed reference to the grounds on which the ejectment could be sought. It was also contended that however a passing reference was made in para No. 3 of the plaint that as the premises are required by the plaintiff, the defendants are being called upon to vacate the same. It was further contended that the learned lower Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in holding that the nature and character of the suit would be changed by allowing the amendment sought for. It was also contended that the cause of action is determined by the service of notice under section 106 of the T. P. Act, and that the grounds of ejectment as contemplated under Section 13 of the Act did not constitute the cause of action and, therefore, it is neither a case of change of cause of action, nor a case wherein it could be said that the nature and character of the suit would be changed. It was also contended that the intention of the Legislature is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and by refusing the application for amendment, the learned lower Court has ignored the basic principle that the multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided. It was also contended that the amendment has been sought at an early stage as even the issues have not yet been framed, and that the defendants are not likely to be put to any inconvenience nor prejudice is likely to be caused to them if the amendment sought for is allowed.
(3.) ON behalf of the defendant-respondents, it was contended that by allowing the application for amendment the entire nature and character of the suit would be changed. It was also contended that in the original plaint there are absolutely no allegations which could justify the ejectment of the tenant under section 13 of the Act. It was also contended that the change in law by deleting sub-section (e) of Section 2 of the Act had come into force as early as on 29th sept. 1975, yet the application for amendment was moved at on extremely belated stage on 2nd March, 1977. It was also contended that there are two defendants and each one of them is paying rent separately, and if the present amendment is allowed, certain rights which have accrued to each one of them would be taken away, and the defence against ejectment is likely to be strongly prejudiced.;