SHAKHAVAT HUSSAIN Vs. TULSI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -tenant has laid the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for assailing the part of the order dt. 11th May 2012 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has decided two applications submitted on behalf of the petitioner -tenant. The application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking additional documents on record was allowed but the application for amendment in the pleadings was declined.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner -tenant Mr. Rajesh Shah has argued that having granted the indulgence to the petitioner -tenant on his application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the amendment in the written statement because those amendments were consequential. Mr. Shah has further submitted that the proposed amendment in the written statement was just and by seeking amendment the petitioner -tenant has made endeavour to place on record certain subsequent events which have definite bearing on the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that the amendment prayed for on behalf of the petitioner -tenant was necessary for disproving reasonable bona fide necessary of the respondent -landlord for the disputed premises. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in case of S.J. Ebenzezer vs. Velayudhan & Ors., : AIR 1988 SC 746. The Apex Court in that case while examining the grounds of bona fide need of the landlord and examining the importance of pleading and proof in such proceedings has made following observations in Para 8 of the judgment:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shah has also placed reliance on a verdict of Apex Court in Koyilerian Janaki & Ors. vs. Rent Controller (Munsiff), Cannanore & Ors., : (2000) 9 SCC 406. In the said verdict while dealing with the pleadings and the evidence tendered by the landlord, the Apex Court has emphasized the need of the importance of pleading as well as proof and so also the revisional jurisdiction of the District Judge under the Kerala Rent Act. The Apex Court made following observations in Para 2 & 3 of the judgment.