JAGDISH RAI BANSAL Vs. RENT TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 7.9.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur dismissing the petitioners non-applicants (Hereinafter 'the non-applicants') application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the reply to eviction petition No. 639/2004. The non-applicants are also aggrieved of the order dated 7.9.2013 in so far as the learned Rent Tribunal has allowed the taking on record of documents in the subsequent eviction petition (675/2012) filed by the respondent applicant Satyendra Prasad Garg - a co-applicant in 639/2004 under section 10(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001') on the case file of eviction petition No. 639/2004. Facts relevant are that one Nagendra Prasad Garg (hereinafter 'co-applicants') and his son Satyendra Prasad Garg filed an eviction petition No. 639/2004 before the Rent Tribunal against the non-applicants under Sections 6 and 9(a)(g) & (k) of the Act of 2001. Summarized the grounds on which the eviction was sought were mesurer of property for commercial purposes albeit let out for residence, default, personal and bona fide necessity as also the availability of alternative accommodation with the non-applicants. This eviction petition 639/2004 continued to remain pending at the stage of the defendant's evidence before the Rent Tribunal for about eight years. In the interregnum Nagendra Prasad Garg appears to have expired, the suit property in eviction petition No. 639/2004 come to the share of Satyendra Prasad Garg (under a family settlement of 11.10.2012) who earlier engaged as a Professor at the Medical College, Bikaner retired. In these circumstances Satyendra Prasad Garg moved another application under section 10(1)(b) of the Act of 2001 which provides that on the retirement of a landlord if any eviction petition is moved within one year thereof the landlord would be entitled to immediate possession of the tenanted premises.

(2.) The non-applicants then moved an application before the Rent Tribunal under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking to amend their reply to eviction petition No. 639/2004. It was stated that the factum of an eviction petition No. 639/2004. It was stated that the factum of an eviction petition No. 675/2012 having been filed under Section 10(1)(b) of the Act of 2001 was a subsequent event purportedly having a bearing on the outcome of the earlier eviction petition 639/2004 and therefore, the non-applicants should be allowed to amend the written statement. Badly and wrongly advised, the applicant on his part also sought before the Rent Tribunal in eviction petition 639/2004 to treat the averments and the contents of eviction petition 675/2012 filed under Sec. 10(1)(b) of the Act of 2001 read as part and parcel of the grounds of eviction petition 639/2004. The learned Rent Tribunal has dismissed the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. filed by the non-applicants and while disallowing the prayer of the applicant to treat the averments and contents of subsequent eviction petition 675/2012 as part and parcel of the earlier eviction petition 639/2004 allowed the documents enclosed therewith to be taken on record of eviction petition 639/2004 and to have them exhibited.

(3.) Mr. Sanjay Joshi, counsel appearing for the non-applicants had submitted that it is well settled that subsequent events which have the potential of eclipsing a cause of action or a part of cause of action in a pending eviction petition should be taken on record. It has been submitted that the eviction petition 675/2012 was a subsequent event and amendment to the reply in petition No. 639/2004 ought to have been allowed by the Rent Tribunal on the non-applicants' application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. This was wrongly and unjustly denied. He submitted that the order dated 7.9.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal is also bad and contradictory for having dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. filed by the non-applicants for taking subsequent events on record on the one hand and yet on the other hand allowing the applicant to bring documents relating to those very subsequent events on record of the pending eviction petition 639/2004.