Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1029 (RAJ)

Ravindran v. Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara

2014-04-28

SANGEET LODHA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 27.7.2009 passed by Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in rent Case 39/2003, whereby an application preferred on behalf of the petitioner-tenant under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking leave to amend the reply, stands rejected. 2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition seeking petitioner's eviction from the premises, a shop, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity of the premises for the purpose of construction of stairs for approaching the second floor of adjoining building purchased by his son and daughter-in-law as also for construction of a big tank for storage of water. That apart, it is pleaded that the part of the premises is required for business of computer hardware to be undertaken by his grand son-Vipul. The petition is being contested by the petitioner-tenant by filing a reply thereto. 3. As a matter of fact, the respondent-landlord had preferred the petition being No. 44/2007, for eviction against yet another tenant-Arvind Kumar Dani, occupying the first floor of the premises in question as well inasmuch as for construction of stairs for approaching the second floor of the adjoining building, obviously, the first floor of the premises in question is also required. However, the respondent-landlord entered into a compromise with the tenant occupying the first floor by enhancing the rent. The compromise arrived at between the parties was attested by the Rent Tribunal and the petition, preferred by the respondent-landlord against the tenant-Arvind Kumar Dani stands dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.8.2007. In view of the subsequent event, the petitioner preferred an application seeking leave to amend the reply, which stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned observing that the premises in question and the premises in respect whereof compromise has been arrived at by the respondent-landlord with the tenant being different, the same has no bearing on the dispute between the parties herein. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that indisputably, the premises in respect whereof the respondent-landlord has filed petition seeking eviction against the tenant-Arvind Kumar, is the first floor of the premises and part of same building wherein the petitioner is carrying on his business. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that indisputably, the premises in respect whereof the respondent-landlord has filed petition seeking eviction against the tenant-Arvind Kumar, is the first floor of the premises and part of same building wherein the petitioner is carrying on his business. Learned Counsel submitted that the eviction is sought by the petitioner on the ground that the premises is required for construction of stairs for approaching the second floor of adjoining building and therefore, if the first floor of the premises in question occupied by yet another tenant is not vacated, obviously, the stairs for approaching the second floor of the building, cannot be constructed and therefore, the bona fide necessity pleaded by the respondent-landlord for the purpose of construction of stairs, does not survive and therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the subsequent event deserves to be brought on record. 5. On the other hand, Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there is a separate stairs available for approaching the first floor of the premises in question and therefore, the compromise entered into by the respondent landlord with the tenant occupying the first floor on the premises has no bearing in the matter. However, on being asked by the Court as to how the stairs will be constructed for approaching the second floor of the adjoining building unless the requisite apace for construction of the stairs is available on the first floor of the premises in question, learned Counsel had no answer. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. Undoubtedly, Tribunal is vested with the power to allow either party to alter or amend its pleading at any stage of the proceedings and on such terms as may be just. It is guiding principle of amendment that all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties to any proceedings shall be generally allowed. The pretrial amendments are allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be made after commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof. It is guiding principle of amendment that all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties to any proceedings shall be generally allowed. The pretrial amendments are allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be made after commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof. Normally, the right to relief must be judged by reference to the date of suit or legal proceedings were instituted but the subsequent development which have bearing on right to relief claimed by the party, such subsequent events may be permitted to be brought on record by way of amendment of the pleadings. However, the power to permit amendment of the pleadings is discretionary and has to be exercised judicially on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. As discussed above, the bona fide necessity of the premises has been pleaded by the respondent-landlord in terms that the premises is required for construction of the stairs for approaching the second floor of adjoining building purchased by his son and the daughter-in-law. It is not disputed before this Court that the first floor of the premises is in occupation of yet another tenant with whom, the petitioner has already entered into a compromise. It is not understandable as to how the petitioner will construct the stairs for approaching the second floor of adjoining building unless the space required for construction of the stairs is available on the first floor of the premises as well. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the subsequent event sought to be brought by the petitioner on record has direct bearing on the lis between the parties. 9. But then it is to be noticed that while deciding a petition for eviction in terms of provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 15, the Tribunal is required to hold such summary inquiry as it deems necessary and decide the petition. That apart, as per the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act"), the Rent Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down by code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the principle of natural justice and subject to other provisions of the Act, may regulate its own procedure. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the desired purpose may be served if the petitioner is permitted to file affidavit regarding the subsequent event as described in the application seeking amendment and the respondent-landlord is permitted to file counter affidavit, which shall be treated as evidence and shall be taken into consideration by the Rent Tribunal while deciding the matter. 10. In view of the discussion above, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal declining the prayer for amendment is not interfered with. However, the petition is disposed of in terms that the petitioner be permitted to file affidavit regarding the subsequent event as described in the application seeking amendment and the respondent-landlord is permitted to file counter affidavit, which shall be treated as evidence and shall be taken into consideration by the Rent Tribunal while deciding the matter. The affidavit, if any shall be filed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks and the respondent-landlord shall be at liberty to file a counter thereto within a period of two weeks thereafter. No order as to costs.Petition disposed of. *******