Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2145 (RAJ)

Nidhi Grover v. Hari Ram

2014-12-16

ALOK SHARMA

body2014
ORDER : BY THE COURT: REPORTABLE This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 28-4-2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal Kota (hereinafter `the Tribunal') in eviction petition No.49/2011 laid by the respondent landlord (hereinafter `the landlord'), whereby the petitioner tenant's (hereinafter `the tenant') application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the reply to eviction petition has been dismissed. The case of the tenant before the Tribunal was that during the pendency of the eviction petition laid by the landlord the ground of bonafide necessity of the shop in question ceased to exist on the landlord acquiring another shop within Kota city. It was prayed that the reply be allowed to be accordingly amended. On consideration of the application, the Tribunal held that the averments with regard to the landlord acquiring another shop in Kota city was vague and no detail of the property purportedly purchased by the landlord or his daughter, whose requirement was at the basis of the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement to negate his ground of bonafide necessity had been set out. So holding the Tribunal found that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC appeared to have been filed solely with an intent to delay the disposal of the eviction petition. Therefore the application for amendment of the reply to the eviction petition was dismissed. Mr. Mittal, counsel for the tenant has submitted that the impugned order dated 28-4-2014 is vitiated by a misdirection in law, inasmuch as the Tribunal has addressed the merit of the application for amendment of the reply to eviction petition at the initial stage, when such merit of the application could have been addressed only on consideration of evidence at the time disposal of the eviction petition itself. Mr. N.U. Quazi, counsel for the landlord has supported the impugned order dated 28-4-2014. Heard learned counsel for the tenant, as also the landlord, and perused the impugned order dated 28-4-2014 passed by the Tribunal. I find no force in the submission of the counsel for the tenant. It was necessary for the Tribunal to adjudge the relevance of the amendment application (and not the merit of the amendment sought), which could only be with reference to material available on record. I find no force in the submission of the counsel for the tenant. It was necessary for the Tribunal to adjudge the relevance of the amendment application (and not the merit of the amendment sought), which could only be with reference to material available on record. A vague application for an amendment of the reply to the eviction petition not to the satisfaction of the trial court could not have been allowed where it to be so all conceivable facts unrelated to the dispute before the rent Tribunal could be propounded by a party to drag a trial. The application for amendment of the reply was in the circumstances rightly rejected by the Tribunal in exercise of its discretion in the context of overall facts of the case. The tenant failed to state a coherent fact of the landlord acquiring another shop which could be relevant to negate the ground of bonafide reasonable necessity of the landlord for the tenanted shop. Further the proceedings under the provisions of the 2001 Act are summary in nature and the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have been largely and substantially dispensed with. Section 15(5) of the 2001 Act, albeit is directory in nature, sets out that the eviction petition should be disposed of (as far as possible) within a period of 240 days from the date of service of notice on the tenant. The Tribunal has therefore to be live to the shenanigans of a party before it trying to obstruct proceedings by filing of myriad miscellaneous applications without material facts and foundational averments. The impugned order dated 28-4-2014 passed by the Tribunal is a well considered and reasoned order based on objective considerations of material facts before it passed in its discretion. No perversity or error is apparent in the impugned order and it occasions no manifest injustice to the petitioner tenant. In the circumstances no interference under the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted. Petition is dismissed.