Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakash vs Chandrashekhar Tak ... on 9 May, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023/RJJD/014144]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18648/2022
1. Prakash S/o Chandiram, Aged About 40 Years, At Present
Working At M/s Madan Auto Repairs, A-13, Pratap Nagar,
Soorsagar Road, Jodhpur.
2. Madan S/o Chandiram, Aged About 48 Years, At Present
Working At M/s Madan Auto Repairs, A-13, Pratap Nagar,
Soorsagar Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Chandrashekhar Tak S/o Prabhu Singh Tak, Plot No. A-13,
Pratapnagar, Soorsagar, Jodhpur.
2. Gajendra Tak S/o Prabhu Singh Tak, Plot No. A-13,
Pratapnagar, Soorsagar, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Mehta, on VC
Mr. Pritam Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Patel
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
09/05/2023
1. This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred claiming the
following reliefs:-
"i. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
impugned order dated 07.05.2022 (Annex.4) passed by
thelearned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur
may kindly be quashed and set aside.
ii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 21
of the Rent Control Act, 2001 preferred by the petitioner
tenant for amending the written statement ay kindly be
allowed and the learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur
(Downloaded on 11/05/2023 at 10:07:59 PM)
[2023/RJJD/014144] (2 of 3) [CW-18648/2022]
Metropolitan, Jodhpur may kindly be directed to permit the
petitioner to amend its written statement."
2. Mr. O.P. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners are the tenant and respondents are the
landlord and while the matter is being adjudicated by the Rent
Tribunal Jodhpur, petitioners' application under Order 6 Rule 17
read with Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 seeking
amendment in the written statements in light of subsequent
developments may be permitted.
2.1. Learned counsel further submits that to avoid any delay he
shall not bring any fresh evidence on record and shall not carry
out any examination or call for any witness from the respondents
and would be ready for final hearing.
2.2. Learned counsel submits that the knowledge of the adjoining
property of the same landlord having been vacated was a
subsequent event, which was not in the knowledge of the
petitioners and thus, amendment in the written statement ought
to be allowed because with the vacation of such adjoining area,
the ground of establishing a handicraft business stands fulfilled
and the petitioners would have a strong reason to justify their
continuance in the premises.
3. Mr. Ashok Patel, learned counsel for the respondents,
however, submits that the trial is at the fag end and the
petitioners themselves were having the knowledge of the eviction
before, as three suits were filed simultaneously.
(Downloaded on 11/05/2023 at 10:07:59 PM)
[2023/RJJD/014144] (3 of 3) [CW-18648/2022]
3.1. He further submits that it is upto the respondent-landlords
as to whether the business was to be carried out in what size of
the property and not upto the petitioners.
3.2. He also submits that the matter is at the fag end and at the
verge of final decision and thus, any interference of this Court at
this stage would be detrimental to the cause of justice.
3.3. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment
rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidyabai & Ors.
Vs. Padmalatha & Anr. reported in 2009 (3) RLW 2524 (SC).
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, this
Court is of the firm opinion that in the given factual matrix, any
amendment cannot be permitted and the learned trial Court has
rightly dismissed the application Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section
21 of the Rent Control Act, 2001, because it was upto the tenant
to be duly diligent regarding factual matrix, which was happening.
It is also noted by this Court that the trial is at the fag end and an
immediate decision ought to be taken by learned trial Court in the
best interest of justice, strictly in accordance with law without
getting prejudiced by this order on merits.
5. The order passed by the learned trial Court is justified and
does not call for any interference, thus, the writ petition is
dismissed.
6. All pending applications stands disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
38-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
