Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 487 (RAJ)

Rameshwar Lal v. Mohni Devi

2019-02-11

INDERJEET SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the order dated 20.04.2017 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner whereby the application filed by the petitioner-tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-landlords have filed an eviction application against the present petitioner- tenant before the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner on the ground of bona fide need and personal necessity. The learned Tribunal had allowed the original application filed by the respondents-landlord vide order dated 24.07.2009. Against the order dated 24.07.2009, the petitioner-tenant had filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner and during pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner-tenant had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the appeal to the effect that the son of the respondents, namely Navin is doing business at Jaipur which was dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner vide order dated 20.04.2017. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant Mr. Manoj Bhandari submitted that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has committed a serious illegality in dismissing the application of the petitioner- tenant as the petitioner-tenant came to know that the son of the landlord, namely Navin is doing business at Jaipur in the name of Modi Furniture House and this fact is very much necessary to bring on record for deciding the bona fide need of the shop in dispute. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents-landlord Mr. Narendra Thanvi supported the order impugned dated 20.04.2017 and prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner-tenant has taken an objection in the reply to the eviction application that the son of the respondents-landlord is doing the business at Jaipur, therefore, considering this aspect of the matter, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner- tenant filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The writ petition filed by the petitioner-tenant deserves to be dismissed as the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner, while deciding issue No. 3 has considered the fact regarding doing the business at Jaipur by the son of the landlord, namely Navin, for whose necessity, the shop in dispute is required, therefore, in my considered view, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has not committed any illegality in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC at appellate stage. 7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner-tenant-Rameshwar Lal stands dismissed.