Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2592 (RAJ)

Saeed v. Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, City Jaipur

2011-11-28

ALOK SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner-tenant has filed this petition challenging the order dated 03.10.2011, passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the petitioner's application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected. 2. The case of the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter the tenant) in his application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC was that the respondent-landlord (hereinafter the landlord) had four shops on Amer Road (Manu Marg) - out of which one was tenanted by Gulab Ji and Jugal Ji, who were running an office and dealing in property therefrom. According to the tenant, the aforesaid tenanted shop was vacated in August, 2011 and the possession thereof was given to the landlord. It was submitted in the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC that the said shop vacated by Gulab Ji and Jugal Ji was larger than the shop which the tenant was occupying and was even better located. According to the tenant, the said facts stated in the amendment application constituted a subsequent event and needed to be brought on record in the reply to the eviction petition by way of an amendment thereto. 3. The landlord did not file reply to the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC and sought to argue the matter. 4. In the course of arguments, the landlord pointed out to the Tribunal that in the reply to the eviction petition as originally filed by the tenant, he had averred that the landlord had three other shops out of which two were then itself in the possession of the landlord. According to the landlord, while in the reply to the eviction petition filed earlier, the shop at Amer road was stated to be vacant and in the possession of the landlord, in the application for amendment, it was stated that the said shop was vacated subsequently by Gulab Ji and Jugal Ji in the month August, 2011. On these facts the landlord submitted that the averments in the application for amendment were contrary to the averments to the reply to the eviction petition and therefore ought not to be taken on record. On these facts the landlord submitted that the averments in the application for amendment were contrary to the averments to the reply to the eviction petition and therefore ought not to be taken on record. It was further stated that in any event if the shop was allegedly vacated in August, 2011 as stated by the tenant, there was no occasion to file the application for amendment subsequent to the arguments of the landlord in the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal on 16.09.2011, in the month of September, 2011. 5. The Rent Tribunal considered the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC filed by the tenant and took into consideration the contradiction between the facts averred in the application for amendment and the facts averred in the reply to the eviction petition filed by the tenant and also noted that the application for amendment was filed subsequent to final arguments of the landlord on 16.09.2011. The Rent Tribunal also recorded the fact that rather than finally argue the matter, following the final arguments of the landlord, the tenant had filed an application for amendment belatedly which appeared to be a mere ruse to delay the proceedings. 6. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned, I am of the view that the Rent Control Act, 2001 promulgated to expedite hearing of the eviction petition does not contemplate belated applications for amendment at the stage of final arguments. In the facts of the case, the application for amendment at the stage of final arguments more so based on averments contrary to the averments in the reply to the eviction petition was not a good ground for the Rent Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction and allow the application for amendment. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Murlidhar v. Nand Kishore & Ors. [2006(1) RCJ 377] , wherein this Court has held as under : A Court of law may take into account subsequent events for considering applications for amendment of pleading inter alia in : the following circumstances : (i) the relief claimed originally has by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate; or (ii) It is necessary to take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten litigation; or (iii) It is necessary to do so in order to do complete justice between the parties. 8. 8. From the facts on record, none of the circumstances, as detailed in the aforesaid judgment, attract to the facts of case; neither the relief claimed originally can be said by reason of subsequent change of circumstances to have become inappropriate; nor was the amendment proposed necessary to be taken note of to shorten litigation; further from the facts on record, it is not also evident that the amendment application ought to have been allowed to do complete justice between the parties. On the contrary the application for amendment of the reply has been found by the Tribunal to be inordinately belated without good cause and based on averments contrary to the averments in the reply to the eviction petition. 9. This Court in proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can exercise its jurisdiction only in cases of excess of jurisdictionary misdirection in law or perversity on facts. Neither of the situation obtains in the present case. The petition is without merit and deserving dismissal. 10. I find no reason to interfere with order dated 03.10.2011. The petition is dismissed.Stay application is also dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******