ARJUN MAL Vs. MOHINI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions have been filed against the common judgment and order of the Court below dated 15. 2. 2002 passed in Civil Appeal No. 32/1994, rejecting the applications of the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") for taking additional evidence on record and seeking amendment of the pleadings.

(2.) THE suit was filed in 1988 by the non-petitioner for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of bonafide personal necessity and nuisance under the provisions of Section 13 (1) (h) and Section 13 (1) (b) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, "the Act, 1950" ). THE suit was decreed in 1994. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner preferred first appeal, in which he filed an application for amendment as he wanted to urge additional ground that the non- petitioner/plaintiff had other premises vacant and rented it out, but that application was rejected. Against the same, petitioner filed a Revision Petition No. 76/1997, which was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 12. 10. 2001. While disposing of the said revision, this Court directed the learned appellate Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. Petitioner filed the aforesaid applications when the matter came up for final hearing on the ground that the non- petitioner/plaintiff had raised the issue of applicability of Section 13 (1) (i) of the Act, 1950, also i. e. that petitioner had acquired a residential house in the city and hence those applications were necessary. Both these applications were necessary. Both these application have been rejected on the ground that this was an admitted fact before the trial Court that petitioner-defendant had a house in the city and both the applications were not necessary as there had been an issue before the trial Court regarding comparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant and everything could be argued on that issue. However, the learned Appellate Court made certain observations, i. e. whether the ground of Section 13 (1) (i) of the Act, 1950 is available or not, would be seen at a later stage. Hence these revisions.

(3.) IN Soonda Ram & Anr. vs. Rameshwar Lal & Anr. (5), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the case under the said provisions of the Rajasthan Act, 1950 and held that if the issue can be decided on the basis of the evidence on record and there was no defect in the pleadings of such a nature that would enable the Court to obliterate and ignore the evidence adduced on the points involved, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 should not be allowed.