Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 958 (RAJ)

Rakesh Babu Jain v. Surendra Kumar Jain

2022-03-23

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner-defendant challenging the order dated 11.03.2019, passed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar, whereby, application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC has been decided by a common order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an application was filed before the Rent Tribunal, wherein, amendment was sought in the written statement/pleadings, as subsequent developments had taken place with respect to the averments made in the application filed by the respondent- landlord, requiring the premise for personal necessity. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner wanted to bring the relevant facts into notice of the Court, as the necessity which was claimed in the Eviction Petition, was no more existing. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has wrongly rejected both the prayers of the petitioner of making amendment in the pleadings and placing documents on record. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the very purpose of making amendment will be frustrated if the Courts will not permit the subsequent development to be brought on record by way of amendment. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Court below has rejected the application of amendment only on account of an earlier amendment being denied on 27.04.2017, whereby, the petitioner earlier had filed an application to bring certain facts on record relating to employment of son of the landlord. 7. Learned counsel submitted that another basis of rejection of application is with regard to delay being caused by the petitioner but the same fact is not correct and there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in the proceedings initiated by the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court in catena of judgments has found that provisions of CPC are not strictly applicable in rent eviction proceedings, however, broad provisions are required to be followed and in particular, the principles of natural justice is also required to be followed. 9. Learned counsel refers to the judgments passed in the case of Ravindran v. Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara reported in 2014 Vol.2 DNJ 768, in the case of Nand Kishore and Ors. v. Rent Tribunal, Nagaur and Ors. 9. Learned counsel refers to the judgments passed in the case of Ravindran v. Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara reported in 2014 Vol.2 DNJ 768, in the case of Nand Kishore and Ors. v. Rent Tribunal, Nagaur and Ors. passed by Principal Seat at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7287/2010 decided on 16.04.2014, in the case of Vinod Nikub and Ors. v. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Ors. passed by Principal Seat at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2496/2014 decided on 14.05.2014, in the case of Naimuzzama Khan v. Shaukat Ali and Ors. reported in [(2016)1 RCR (Rent) 139]. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of said judgments submitted that if amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not to be allowed, then at least, permission is required to be given to file additional affidavit to the party concerned and the other party can be given an opportunity to file counter- affidavit or evidence in rebuttal can be given by way of additional affidavit. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr.Ajay Goyal submitted that the Court below has not committed any illegality in passing the orders. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had sought amendment earlier also and same was rejected way back in year 2017. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the evidence of the respondents has been recorded and relevant questions have been put to him about the bonafide necessity of the premise and whatever amendment is sought by the petitioner, is already a subject matter of cross-examination from the defendant. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. This Court finds that the Court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. 16. This Court further finds that the petitioner may be provided an opportunity to file affidavit before the Court below by making averments which he intends to make by way of amendment in the pleadings. 17. This Court also finds that in the cases of Ravindran (supra), Nand Kishore and Ors. (supra), Vinod Nikub and Ors.(supra) and Naimuzzama Khan (supra) as referred hereinabove, the same view has been taken by the Court. 18. 17. This Court also finds that in the cases of Ravindran (supra), Nand Kishore and Ors. (supra), Vinod Nikub and Ors.(supra) and Naimuzzama Khan (supra) as referred hereinabove, the same view has been taken by the Court. 18. This Court, disposes of, the present writ petitions by permitting the petitioner to file additional affidavit of the subsequent developments as described in the application seeking amendment and respondent-landlord will be permitted to file counter-affidavit, which shall be treated as evidence and may be taken into consideration while deciding the Eviction Petition. 19. The petitioner will be required to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent-landlord in the Trial Court on the next date fixed by it.