DHANNALAL HARDEV Vs. VIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 31.01.2020 whereby, the learned Rent Tribunal Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/non-applicants/tenants under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondents-applicants filed an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 against the petitioners/non-applicants/tenants against the petitioners seeking their eviction from the suit shop on the grounds of default in payment of rent and reasonable and bonafide necessity of the suit shop for the applicant No.3. The petitioners in their reply to the Original Application submitted that the applicant No.3 was not unemployed and was carrying on business. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioners moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC stating therein that the applicant No.3 has been employed with the bank; hence, reasonable and bonafide necessity of the applicant has come to an end and consequential amendment was sought in the reply. The learned Rent Tribunal, has vide its order dated 31.01.2020, rejected the application.

(3.) Assailing the order, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Rent Tribunal erred in rejecting the application in the teeth of admission by the respondents in their reply to the amendment application as to the employment of the applicant No.3 with the bank albeit contractual. He submitted that whether employment was regular or contractual was subject matter of evidence and the amendment sought for could not have been rejected on this count. He further submitted that the order is bad in law in as much as their averment in the reply as to the applicant No.3 not being unemployed, has been misconstrued. He submitted that since on account of employment of the applicant No.3, the reasonable and bonafide necessity has come to an end completely, the application should have been allowed. He, therefore, prayed that the order dated 31.01.2020 be quashed.