Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1454 (RAJ)

Kamlesh Jain v. Pankaj Jain

2022-05-06

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2022
ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners/tenants against the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Alwar in Civil Cross Appeal (Rent) No.39/2020 whereby, an application filed by them under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking an amendment in the reply, has been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent No.1/landlord filed a rent eviction application against the petitioners and proforma respondents No.2 to 8 under Section 9 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, 'the Act of 2001') seeking eviction on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide necessity and acquisition of alternative accommodation. The learned Rent Tribunal, vide its judgment dated 19.03.2020, issued recovery certificate qua acquisition of alternative accommodation and decided the issue of reasonable and bona fide necessity against the landlord. The judgment dated 19.03.2020 was assailed by the petitioners by way of an appeal wherein the respondent No.1 filed his cross objections. In the cross objections, the petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the reply on account of subsequent event, i.e., filing of an application by the wife of the respondent No.1 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity, 'the Act of 2005') with certain averments touching the issue of a reasonable and bona fide necessity. This application has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 21.04.2022, impugned herein. 3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal erred in failing to appreciate that facts sought to be incorporated in the reply arose on account of subsequent event having material bearing on the issue of reasonable and bona fide necessity. He further submitted that in support of additional evidence sought to be placed on record alongwith their application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, existence of supporting pleading was necessary. Learned counsel, relying upon judgments of this Court in the cases of Ravindran Vs. Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in S.B Civil Writ Petition No.9229/2009 & Naimuzzama Khan Vs. Shaukat Ali & Ors. Learned counsel, relying upon judgments of this Court in the cases of Ravindran Vs. Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in S.B Civil Writ Petition No.9229/2009 & Naimuzzama Khan Vs. Shaukat Ali & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6186/2015, submitted that in case their application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC does not find favour, they may be permitted to bring the subsequent event on record by way of an affidavit with liberty to the respondent No.1 to file counter affidavit which may be considered by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeal. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the order impugned dated 21.04.2022 be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the application filed by the petitioners does not disclose any such subsequent event which can be said to have any material bearing on the issue of reasonable and bona fide necessity. He submitted that the petitioners have already stated almost all the facts sought to be incorporated by way of the amendment, in their reply to the original application. He submitted that the application filed by the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking on record additional evidence is yet to be decided and hence, presupposing that the same would be allowed, the petitioners cannot be permitted to make amendment in the pleadings in support thereof. He further submitted that it is a well established legal position that reasonable and bona fide necessity has to be adjudged on the position obtaining on the day the rent application is filed and each and every subsequent event cannot be permitted to be incorporated by way of an amendment. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. In the rent eviction application filed by the respondent No.1 in the year 2015, he has expressed reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit shop for himself as well as for his wife. The petitioners have specifically stated in their reply that business in the adjacent shop, under the ownership of the respondent No.1, was being carried out by himself in the name and style of 'Aadarsh Textiles' not by his mother as averred in the rent eviction application. It is further averred therein that his wife is a homemaker and the suit shop is not required for her business. It is further averred therein that his wife is a homemaker and the suit shop is not required for her business. Now, the facts sought to be incorporated in their reply by way of amendment application are to the effect that wife of the respondent No.1 has filed an application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 wherein she has stated that the respondent No.1 was carrying out business in the name of 'Aadarsh Textiles', was having a godown at home and an underground godown in Scheme No.12, Alwar. It was further averred that in her application, she has prayed for a separate residential accommodation and for a rented premises to run her beauty parlour business. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC reveals that it is bereft of any averment that the facts stated to be subsequent event and sought to be incorporated in the reply by way of the amendment, have any material bearing on the reasonable and bona fide necessity pleaded by the respondent No.1. It simply avers that the amendment is necessitated on account of subsequent event which is not sufficient to warrant amendment in the reply at the appellate stage qua the reasonable and bona fide necessity as it is trite law that the reasonable and bona fide necessity has to be adjudged on the basis of position existing on the day the rent eviction application is filed and each and every subsequent event which does not have material bearing on the issue, cannot be permitted to be incorporated by way of amendment in the reply. As is apparent from the material on record including the reply filed by the petitioners themselves to the rent eviction application, the fact that the respondent No.1 was carrying out business in the adjacent shop in the name of 'Aadarsh Textiles' is not a subsequent event revealed from the application filed by the wife of the respondent No.1. Having a godown at home and an underground godown in Scheme No.12, Alwar, does not appear to have any bearing on the issue and it is not so pleaded also in the application. Having a godown at home and an underground godown in Scheme No.12, Alwar, does not appear to have any bearing on the issue and it is not so pleaded also in the application. Further, it is not stated in the application filed by the petitioners that either it is a subsequent event or that they have come to know of these godowns for the first time from the application filed by wife of the respondent No.1. Similarly, the other averments made in the application filed under the Act of 2005 do not constitute such subsequent event which can be said to have material bearing on the reasonable and bona fide necessity pleaded in the rent eviction application wherein, the suit shop is stated to be required for himself as also for his wife. 7. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in case their application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is allowed, it is necessary to have on record pleadings in support of additional evidence, does not merit acceptance. The application is pending consideration and presupposing that it shall be allowed, the petitioners could not have been permitted to make amendment in the reply. It is for the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal to decide the course it would take in case the application filed by the petitioners for taking additional evidence on record merits acceptance. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to satisfy this Court that the order dated 21.04.2022 suffers from any patent jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference of this Court under its limited supervisory jurisdiction. 9. In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.