Rakesh Babu Jain S/O Late Shri ... vs Surendra Kumar Jain S/O Late ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2482 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6763/2019

Rakesh Babu Jain S/o Late Shri Ugrasain Jain, R/o Chawed
Padhi, Mini Cottage Alwar, Shopkeeper Near Nagar Parishad,
Alwar
                                                      ----Petitioner/Defendant
                                    Versus
1.       Surendra Kumar Jain S/o Late Dharamchand Jain, R/o
         Near Nagar Parishad Office, Town Hall, Alwar Tehsil and
         District Alwar
                                                   ---Plaintiff/Non-Petitioner
2.       Smt. Gidodi Devi W/o Late Shri Ugrasain Jain, R/o
         Chawed Padhi, Mini Cottage Alwar (Death)
3.       Mahesh Babu Jain S/o Late Shri Ugrasain Jain, R/o
         Chawed Padhi, Mini Cottage Alwar
                                              ----Defendant/Non Petitioners
                               Connected With
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6764/2019
Rakesh Babu Jain S/o Late Shri Ugrasain Jain, R/o Chawed
Padhi, Mini Cottage Alwar, Shopkeeper Near Nagar Parishad,
Alwar.
                                                      ----Defendant-Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       Surendra Kumar Jain S/o Late Dharamchand Jain, R/o
         Near Nagar Parishad Office, Town Hall, Alwar Tehsil And
         District Alwar.
                                                    ---Plaintiff/Non-Petitioner
2.       Smt. Gidodi Devi W/o Late Shri Ugrasain Jain, R/o
         Chawed Padhi, Mini Cottage, Alwar.
3.       Mahesh Babu Jain S/o Late Shri Ugrasain Jain, R/o
         Chawed Padhi, Mini Cottage, Alwar.
                                            ----Defendants-Non Petitioners


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr.Mohit Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr.Ajay Goyal, Adv.

                                            (2 of 5)                     [CW-6763/2019]


         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

                                      Order

23/03/2022

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

(3 of 5) [CW-6763/2019]

application to bring certain facts on record relating to employment

of son of the landlord.

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.

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.

Learned counsel refers to the judgments passed in the

case of Ravindran Vs. Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara reported in

2014 Vol.2 DNJ 768, in the case of Nand Kishore and Ors. Vs.

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. Vs. 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 Vs. Shaukat Ali

and Ors. reported in [(2016)1 RCR (Rent) 139].

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.

(4 of 5) [CW-6763/2019]

Learned counsel for the respondents Mr.Ajay Goyal

submitted that the Court below has not committed any illegality in

passing the orders.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the

petitioner had sought amendment earlier also and same was

rejected way back in year 2017.

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.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material available on record.

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.

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.

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.

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

(5 of 5) [CW-6763/2019]

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.

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.

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

Himanshu Soni/14-15

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)