Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1366 (RAJ)

Laxmi Narayan Kansara v. Tejpal

2019-05-03

P.K. LOHRA

body2019
JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - Petitioner-tenant has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 02.02.2019 (Annex.5), passed by Rent Tribunal, Banswara (for short, 'learned Tribunal') Learned Tribunal, by the order impugned, rejected the application of petitioner-tenant for amendment of written statement in a petition for eviction under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, 'Act') laid on behalf of respondent-landlord. 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent-landlord preferred a petition under Section 9 of the Act on various grounds for seeking eviction of the petitioner from the rented premises. Essentially, respondent-landlord has set out the grounds of reasonable and bonafide necessity. The petition for eviction is contested by petitioner-tenant by filing written statement. 3. Before commencement of evidence of the rival parties, at the behest of petitioner, an endeavour was made for amendment in the pleadings and consequently, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed. 4. In the application, petitioner has inter-alia, craved to plead some additional grounds for thwarting the petition for eviction. The application is resisted by the respondent-landlord. The learned Tribunal, after hearing rival parties, while dilating on the merits of amendment, declined prayer of the petitioner-tenant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused materials available on record, including the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15272/2008 (Prithi Pal Singh & Anr. vs. Amrik Singh & Ors.) reported in 2014 (1) Civil Court Cases 797 (S.C.). There remains no quarrel that the petition for eviction laid on behalf of respondent-landlord is at the initial stage and so far evidence of rival parties has not commenced, and therefore, the objection of respondent-landlord that petitioner's whole endeavour is to delay the proceedings though appears to be alluring but not of substance. 7. The legal position is no more res integra that amendment in the pleadings can very well be permitted by the Court if trial has not commenced and while considering such a plea of a litigant, merits of the amendments sought to be made in the pleadings cannot be examined. The provision under Order 6 Rule 17 CPCare incorporated with laudable objects and the dominant purpose is to minimize the litigation. 8. The provision under Order 6 Rule 17 CPCare incorporated with laudable objects and the dominant purpose is to minimize the litigation. 8. My aforesaid view is also fortified by judgment in Prithi Pal Singh & Anr. Vs. Amrik Singh & Ors.(supra), wherein, Supreme Court has held: "10. In the case of Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and Anr., 2002 (2) Apex Court Judgments 361 (S.C): 2002 (3) Civil Court Cases 364 (S.C.) initially, a suit for prohibitory injunction was filed in the year 1988 claiming possession of the suit property. Later in the year, 1989, an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was made for conversion of the suit into one for declaration of title of the suit property and consequential relief of delivery of possession alleging that during the pendency of the suit, defendant dispossessed the plaintiff in January 1989. The amendment was refused. However, in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the conditional amendment was allowed. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "In the present case, the amendment is being sought for almost 11 years after the date of the institution of the suit. The plaintiff is not debarred from instituting a new suit seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession on the same basic facts as are pleaded in the plaint seeking relief of issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction and which is pending. In order to avoid multiplicity of suits it would be a sound exercise of discretion to permit the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession being sought for in the pending suit. The plaintiff has alleged the cause of action for the reliefs now sought to be added as having arisen to him during the pendency of the suit. The merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment. The plaintiff has alleged the cause of action for the reliefs now sought to be added as having arisen to him during the pendency of the suit. The merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment. However, defendant is right in submitting that if he has already perfected his title by way of adverse possession then the right so accrued should not be allowed to be defeated by permitting an amendment and seeking a new relief which wouldrelate back to the date of the suit and thereby depriving the defendant of the advantage accrued to him by lapse of time, by excluding a period of about 11 years in calculating the period of prescriptive title claimed to have been earned by the defendant. The interest of the defendant can be protected by directing that so far as the reliefs of declaration of title and recovery of possession, now sought for, are concerned the prayer in that regard shall be deemed to have been made on the date on which the application for amendment has been filed." 9. In view thereof, the impugned order, whereby the learned Tribunal has essentially turned down the plea of the petitioner for amendment of pleadings by entering into the merits of the amendment, cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the amendment sought by the petitioner is allowed. It is made clear that the learned Tribunal is expected to proceed with trial expeditiously and decide it at the earliest.