PRANNATH BAMBANI Vs. KESHAV DAS GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these two writ petitions, the petitioner-tenant has assailed the order passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal whereby applications moved by him under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and Order 41 Rule 17 CPC were dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as he had learnt that the landlord non-petitioner had purchased the property which he was using as a tenant earlier, by a registered sale deed on 6/8/2019 and 27/8/2019, he sought prayer for amending his written statement in order to show that the personal bona fide necessity of the landlord has been distinguished as he is now the owner of the rented premises and he does not require the present premises for doing his business. Learned counsel submits that the amendment was necessary as it was in relation to the subsequent events and the Appellate Tribunal has wrongly rejected his application by going into the merits of the amendment application.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the landlord-non-petitioner submits that even if the amendment as sought would have been considered, the Appellate Tribunal has examined the prayer made by the landlord for requirement of premises for extending his business. Thus, while part of the premises has been purchased of the earlier rented premises by the non-petitioner, it would not extinguish his bona fide necessity as he has requested for vacating his own premises for the purpose of extending his business. The Appellate Tribunal has noticed the prayer made by the petitioner and learned counsel relies on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Chandra Shekher versus Bhanu Kumar reported in 2017 CJ(Rent Control) 172 and in the case of Rajendra Kumar and Anr. vs. Smt. Heera Devi and Ors. reported in 2019 CJ (Rent Control) 39 and also in the case of Pratap Rai Tanwani and Anr. versus Uttam Chand and Anr. reported in 2004 (8) SCC 490 in support of his submissions.