Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 797 (RAJ)

Sajjan Singh Guhil v. Mahendra Singh Sardar

2014-03-27

SANGEET LODHA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 3.1.14 of Rent Tribunal, Udaipur, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking leave to amend the reply to the petition for eviction preferred on behalf of the respondent-landlord, stands rejected. 2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from premises, a shop, inter alia on the ground that the premises is required to carry out building work because it has become unsafe for human habitation. The petition is being contested by the petitioner by filing a written statement thereto. The evidence of the respondent-landlord stands concluded and the matter is fixed for examination of the petitioner's witnesses. 3. At this stage, the petitioner preferred an application seeking leave to amend the reply stating that on 10.12.13, he has come to know that the respondent-landlord was granted permission by the Municipal Council, Udaipur for construction of second floor over the existing premises and therefore, the stand taken by the respondent-landlord regarding dilapidated condition of the premises is incorrect. 4. The application stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned observing that the position of the disputed premises in the year 1980 is irrelevant for the determination of the issue of the disputed premises being in dilapidated condition raised in the year 2010 and therefore, at this belated stage, the amendment prayed for, cannot be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the amendment sought for is absolutely necessary inasmuch as, it will falsify the stand taken by the respondent-landlord that the premises has become unsafe for human habitation. Learned counsel submitted that the amendment sought for could not have been disallowed by the court below on the ground that the document sought to be produced by the petitioner will cause prejudice to the respondent-landlord. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. Undoubtedly, the Rent Tribunal is empowered to allow either party to alter or amend its pleadings 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. 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 amendment of the pleadings which alter materially or substitute the cause of the action or the nature of the claim cannot be allowed. The pre trial amendments are allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be made after commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof. The amendment sought for belatedly cannot be refused if it is found that for deciding the real controversy between the parties, it can be allowed on payment of costs. However, the power conferred under Order 6, Rule 17 is discretionary and has to be exercised judicially on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. It is true that the respondent-landlord has taken the stand that the premises has become unsafe for human habitation. But then, for determining the question raised regarding dilapidated condition of the premises, the factum of the respondent-landlord obtaining permission to raise construction of the second floor in the year 1980 is hardly of any relevance. Obviously, for determining the issue as to whether the premises in question has become unsafe for human habitation, the condition of the premises as on the date, is to be taken into consideration and thus, the facts regarding the premises being in good condition before 33 years, are in no manner suggestive of the fact that presently, the premises is not in dilapidated condition. In this view of the matter, the application preferred by the petitioner seeking leave to amend the reply, which only appears to be a delaying tactics adopted by the petitioner, has rightly been rejected by the Rent Tribunal. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, in the considered opinion of this court, the impugned order passed by the Rent Tribunal does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed inPetition Dismissed. *******