Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 791 (RAJ)

Rampratap Bhanwarlal Company v. Mrs. Neha Bindal

2023-04-07

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2023
ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners/Non-Applicants/Tenants against the order dated 29.07.2021 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Ajmer in Rent case on 128/2018 whereby an application filed by the petitioners under 21(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, 'the Act of 2001') read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in their reply, has been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent-landlord filed an eviction application against the petitioners in the year 2018 on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of her husband Shri Lokesh Bindal for the suit shop for running a readymade clothes business. It was averred therein that the suit shop is situated in the main market and was suitable for the business. After commencement of trial, the petitioners filed an application under Section 21(3) of the Act of 2001 read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the reply for incorporating three subsequent events. The application has been dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 29.07.2021, impugned herein. 3. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners confined his submission qua one subsequent event only, i.e., acquisition of alternative accommodation by the respondent on account of death of her mother-in-law, Smt. Rajni Devi Bindal on 28.12.2020. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in adjudging the issue of reasonable and bonafide necessity itself at the time of deciding the application seeking amendment by holding that the same is not completely obliterated by this subsequent development. He asserted that the learned Tribunal further erred in appreciating merits of the amendment sought which is impermissible at this stage. He contended that the matter was fixed for cross-examination of the respondent and hence, the amendment sought should have been allowed. He submitted that the judgments relied upon by the learned Rent Tribunal pertained to appellate stage wherein reasonable and bonafide necessity of the landlord already stood established and hence, their application could not have been dismissed relying upon such judgments. He, therefore, prays that the order impugned dated 29.07.2021 be quashed and set aside and the amendment sought be permitted. He submitted that the judgments relied upon by the learned Rent Tribunal pertained to appellate stage wherein reasonable and bonafide necessity of the landlord already stood established and hence, their application could not have been dismissed relying upon such judgments. He, therefore, prays that the order impugned dated 29.07.2021 be quashed and set aside and the amendment sought be permitted. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon two judgments of this Court in cases of Abdul Razzak vs. The Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur & Ors.: 2015 WLC (Raj.) UC 88 and Laxmi Narayan Kansara vs. Tejpal: 2019(2) WLC (Raj.) UC 102. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is a well established legal principle that reasonable and bonafide necessity of a landlord has to be adjudged as existing on the day the application is filed and each and every subsequent event cannot be permitted to be incorporated by way of amendment to protract the litigation. Learned counsel submitted that since the alternative accommodation alleged to be acquired on account of death of Smt. Rajni Devi Bindal, mother-in-law of the respondent, is residential premises and hence, has rightly not been permitted to be incorporated by way of amendment in the reply. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. He, in support of his submission, relied upon an order of this Court dated 06.04.2022 in case of Vishnu Prasad Garg vs. Smt. Chand Bai (since deceased) and Ors. Heard. Considered. 5. It is trite law that reasonable and bonafide necessity of a landlord has to be adjudged as it existed on the day the rent application is filed. True it is that a subsequent event having material bearing on the reasonable and bonafide necessity can be permitted to be incorporated by way of amendment in the pleadings but, it is not each and every subsequent event which can be so permitted. Indisputably, the alternative accommodation, which is alleged to have been acquired by the respondents after death of her mother-in-law on 28.12.2020, is residential in nature. 6. A perusal of the rent eviction application reveals that reasonable and bonafide necessity of the suit shop was claimed as it is situated in the main market and is suitable for readymade clothes business for her husband. 6. A perusal of the rent eviction application reveals that reasonable and bonafide necessity of the suit shop was claimed as it is situated in the main market and is suitable for readymade clothes business for her husband. In view of the nature of alternative accommodation allegedly acquired by the respondent during pendency of the rent eviction application, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Rent Tribunal has committed no error in rejecting the application. This Court, in its limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, finds no reason to interfere with a well reasoned order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal in its judicious discretion based on cogent material on record. This Court is in respectful agreement with the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners but, the same have no applicability in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.