SUREKHA DEVI Vs. RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed against the order dated 05.02.2013, passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur dismissing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioner-non-applicant (hereinafter 'the non-applicant') for amending his written statement to the eviction petition filed by the respondent No.2-applicant (hereinafter 'the applicant') before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the applicant filed an eviction petition before the Rent Tribunal against the non-applicant for her eviction from a shop owned by him and rented to her. The eviction petition was inter alia grounded on the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the applicant's son Praveen, who was at the relevant time was stated to be not only unemployed and suffering great financial hardship for lack of income, but also not able to get married on that count. Other grounds for eviction taken by the applicant in the eviction petition are however not relevant to the issue agitated in the present petition. On service of notice of the eviction petition, the non-applicant filed a reply of denial.

(3.) In terms of the summary procedure provided for under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, issues were framed. The applicant and his witnesses submitted their affidavits in evidence and were cross-examined. The non-applicant was thereupon to lead her defence evidence. Prior thereto, however, the non-applicant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to bring on record by way of an amendment to her written statement in the eviction petition subsequent events relevant to the adjudication of the issue of the applicant's bona fide and reasonable requirement in the eviction petition i.e. that of the applicant's son Praveen. It was stated in the amendment application that since the filing of the eviction petition, Praveen the applicant's son had been married and had also commenced business out of his parental house bearing No.4452 situate at Nindarrao Ji Ka Rasta, Chandpaul, Jaipur. Counsel submitted that the aforesaid two subsequent events of the applicant's son Praveen commencing business and also getting married were relevant for the determination of the issue of the bona fide and reasonable necessity of the applicant's son for the suit premises as set out originally in the eviction petition.