SHRI SURESH BANSAL Vs. KRISHNA NADKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred by the tenant against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Shimla rejecting his application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter 'the CPC) seeking to amend his reply filed before the learned trial Court. The respondent is the landlady who had instituted the proceedings under Section 14(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter 'the Act') for ejectment of the petitioner. One of the grounds pleaded is that suit premises are bonafide required by the petitioner -respondent for her own use and occupation as she is suffering from cancer. The applicant seeks to incorporate a preliminary objection to the effect that the landlady had rented out the tenanted premises in the year 2005 after vacating the same. Before the year 2005 the premises were occupied by the petitioner - respondent and her family and as she did not require the premises for herself, the same were rented out. In this view of the matter, the amendment was sought to incorporate that the bonafides requirement of the landlady was suspected and no order of ejectment under Section 14(3) of the Act could be passed in her favour. This amendment was sought to be incorporated in para 14 of the reply to the effect that after vacating the premises they were let out in the year 2005 and in this situation, the petition requires to be dismissed.

(2.) THE learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that in the eviction petition, the date of renting out the premises is June, 2003 by virtue of an oral agreement. In reply to this averment, the respondent before the trial Court submits that the premises were rented out by rent note which was executed between the landlady and the replying respondent (tenant) along with his mother and brother and this rent note has been deliberately withheld from the Court in order to obtain a favourable judgment. This is the crux of the case set out in the pleadings.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others v. K.K. Modi and others, : 2006 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 577 : (2006) 4 SCC 385, holds: