Rajasthan High Court
M/S Rampratap Bhanwarlal Company vs Mrs. Neha Bindal W/O Mr. Lokesh ... on 7 April, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8967/2021
1. M/s Rampratap Bhanwarlal Company, Through Partner
Mrs. Vimla Devi W/o Surajmal Goyal, Registered Office At
Purani Mandi, Ajmer.
2. Mrs. Vimla Devi W/o Mr. Surajmal Goyal, Partner, M/s
Rampratap Bhanwarlal Company, Purani Mandi, Ajmer.
3. Mrs. Sulochana W/o Mr. Chandraprakash, Partner, M/s
Rampratap Bhanwarlal Company, Purani Mandi, Ajmer.
----Petitioners/Applicants/Tenants
Versus
Mrs. Neha Bindal W/o Mr. Lokesh Bindal, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident Of 10/132 (149/16) Purani Mandi, Ajmer.
----Respondent/Landlord/Non-applicant
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ridhvick Doshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi with
Mr. Shailendra Kumar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
07/04/2022
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.
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
(2 of 4) [CW-8967/2021]
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.
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
(3 of 4) [CW-8967/2021]
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.
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.
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
(4 of 4) [CW-8967/2021]
death of her mother-in-law on 28.12.2020, is residential in nature.
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.
Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
MADAN/56
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
