ASHOK JOLLY Vs. SHASHI PRABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.05.2012 passed by the ld. ARC, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure (here in after referred to as CPC) was dismissed. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the respondent is an owner of entire property No.D-62, Kirti Nagar, Delhi comprising of ground floor, first floor and second floor. The ground floor has three rooms, one of which is tenanted to the petitioner from where he runs a clinic. The respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) against the petitioner in respect of the said shop, alleging bonafide requirement of the shop for enabling her son to setup his business in the said shop. Upon receiving summons, the petitioner filed an application praying for grant of leave to defend and raised various objections against the eviction petition. Consequently, reply to the application for grant of leave to defend was filed by the respondent.

(2.) After filing the rejoinder to the application, the petitioner filed the application for amendment of the application for leave to defend, submitting that he requires bringing on record subsequent developments which are necessary for the disposal of the eviction petition. It was submitted by him that the respondent had filed two eviction petitions against the tenants of the two other shops situated at the ground floor of the property, adjacent to the shop occupied by him, which were allowed and the respondent was now in possession of those two shops which would meet his requirements. The said application was dismissed by the ld. ARC rejecting the submission of the petitioner. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) The petitioner has reiterated the contentions that were put up by him before the learned ARC. The main thrust of his arguments is that as the two shops on the ground floor of the suit premises are now available to the respondent, the requirement as alleged in the eviction petition stands fulfilled and hence, the petitioner should not be forced to vacate the shop in his occupancy. Reliance has been placed on Ved Prakash and Anr. Vs. Om Prakash Jain, CM (M) 759/2009 decided on 07.08.2009 to emphasize that if the amendment application had been filed within the stipulated time then the applicant should be allowed to bring on record subsequent developments.