NIDHI GROVER Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 28-4-2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal Kota (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') in eviction petition No. 49/2011 laid by the respondent landlord (hereinafter 'the landlord'), whereby the petitioner tenant's (hereinafter 'the tenant') application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the reply to eviction petition has been dismissed. The case of the tenant before the Tribunal was that during the pendency of the eviction petition laid by the landlord the ground of bonafide necessity of the shop in question ceased to exist on the landlord acquiring another shop within Kota city. It was prayed that the reply be allowed to be accordingly amended. On consideration of the application, the Tribunal held that the averments with regard to the landlord acquiring another shop in Kota city was vague and no detail of the property purportedly purchased by the landlord or his daughter, whose requirement was at the basis of the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement to negate his ground of bonafide necessity had been set out. So holding the Tribunal found that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC appeared to have been filed solely with an intent to delay the disposal of the eviction petition. Therefore the application for amendment of the reply to the eviction petition was dismissed.

(2.) Mr. Mittal, counsel for the tenant has submitted that the impugned order dated 28-4-2014 is vitiated by a misdirection in law, inasmuch as the Tribunal has addressed the merit of the application for amendment of the reply to eviction petition at the initial stage, when such merit of the application could have been addressed only on consideration of evidence at the time disposal of the eviction petition itself.

(3.) Mr. N.U. Quazi, counsel for the landlord has supported the impugned order dated 28-4-2014.