JAMEEL MOHD, Vs. DURGESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.5.2013 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the written statement was rejected. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents No. 1 to 9 filed an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001') against the petitioner for eviction of the shop in question on the ground of bonafide necessity and default.

(2.) The written statement/reply to the application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner wherein the petitioner denied that he is the tenant of the respondents and claimed that his brother Basir is tenant in the shop in question and he is doing his business.

(3.) The relevant averments from the written statement of the petitioner filed before the Rent Tribunal are reproduced hereinbelow:--