Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 627 (RAJ)

Dhannalal Hardev v. Vimla Devi

2020-09-04

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 31.01.2020 whereby, the learned Rent Tribunal Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/non-applicants/tenants under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondents-applicants filed an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 against the petitioners/non-applicants/tenants against the petitioners seeking their eviction from the suit shop on the grounds of default in payment of rent and reasonable and bonafide necessity of the suit shop for the applicant No.3. The petitioners in their reply to the Original Application submitted that the applicant No.3 was not unemployed and was carrying on business. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioners moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC stating therein that the applicant No.3 has been employed with the bank; hence, reasonable and bonafide necessity of the applicant has come to an end and consequential amendment was sought in the reply. The learned Rent Tribunal, has vide its order dated 31.01.2020, rejected the application. 3. Assailing the order, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Rent Tribunal erred in rejecting the application in the teeth of admission by the respondents in their reply to the amendment application as to the employment of the applicant No.3 with the bank albeit contractual. He submitted that whether employment was regular or contractual was subject matter of evidence and the amendment sought for could not have been rejected on this count. He further submitted that the order is bad in law in as much as their averment in the reply as to the applicant No.3 not being unemployed, has been misconstrued. He submitted that since on account of employment of the applicant No.3, the reasonable and bonafide necessity has come to an end completely, the application should have been allowed. He, therefore, prayed that the order dated 31.01.2020 be quashed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 5. It is trite that the reasonable and bonafide necessity of an applicant has to be seen on the date the application seeking eviction is filed. It is also well settled that it is not that each and every subsequent development occurring during pendency of eviction application, has to be taken on record by way of amendment. 5. It is trite that the reasonable and bonafide necessity of an applicant has to be seen on the date the application seeking eviction is filed. It is also well settled that it is not that each and every subsequent development occurring during pendency of eviction application, has to be taken on record by way of amendment. The Hon'ble Apex Court has, in case of Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Srivastav, held in Para 10 as under- "10. We have no doubt that the crucial date for deciding as to the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord is the date of his application for eviction. The antecedent days may perhaps have utility for him to reach the said crucial date of consideration. If every subsequent development during the post petition period is to be taken into account for judging the bona fides of the requirement pleaded by the landlord there would perhaps be no end so long as the unfortunate situation in our litigative slow process system subsists. During 23 years after the landlord moved for eviction on the ground that his son needed the building, neither the landlord nor his son is expected to remain idle without doing any work, lest, joining any new assignment or starting any new work would be at the peril of forfeiting his requirement to occupy the building. It is a stark reality that the longer is the life of the litigation the more would be the number of developments sprouting up during the long interregnum. If a young entrepreneur decides to launch a new enterprise and on that ground he or his father seeks eviction of a tenant from the building, the proposed enterprise would not get faded out by subsequent developments during the traditional lengthy longevity of the litigation. His need may get dusted, patina might stick on its surface, nonetheless the need would remain intact. All that is needed is to erase the patina and see the gloss. It is pernicious, and we may say, unjust to shut the door before an applicant just on the eve of his reaching the finale, after passing through all the previous levels of the litigation, merely on the ground that certain developments occurred pendente lite, because the opposite party succeeded in prolonging the matter for such unduly long period." 5. It is pernicious, and we may say, unjust to shut the door before an applicant just on the eve of his reaching the finale, after passing through all the previous levels of the litigation, merely on the ground that certain developments occurred pendente lite, because the opposite party succeeded in prolonging the matter for such unduly long period." 5. Admittedly, the petitioners have denied the averment in the Original Application as to the applicant No.3 being unemployed in their reply. Even if the applicant No.3 has been employed with the bank; regular or contractual as the case may be, is the matter of evidence which can be established by the petitioners during the course of evidence of the parties and it does not require any amendment in the reply filed by them. 6. The order dated 31.01.2020 has been passed by the learned Rent Tribunal in its judicious discretion based on cogent material on record. It does not suffer from any such illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.