VANDANA INTERNATIONAL EXPORTS Vs. ANUJ JAIPURIA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner -defendant, challenging the order dated 08.08.2012, passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as "the court below") in Civil Suit No.44/2002, whereby the court below has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner -defendant under Order VI Rule 17 seeking amendment in the written statement, and also under Order VIII Rule 1 -A (3) of CPC for taking certain documents on record.

(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that the respondent -plaintiff has filed the suit being No.44/2002 against the petitioner -defendant for the determination of the standard rent and for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises, under the provisions contained in Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent And Eviction) Act 1950, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950"). The petitioner -defendant after the completion of the evidence by both the parties, filed the applications on 04.11.2011 seeking amendment in the written statement under Order VI Rule 17, and seeking production of documents under Order VIII Rule 1 -A (3) which applications have been dismissed by the court below vide the impugned order.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.K. Agarwal, that though the suit has been filed under the provisions contained in the old Act of 1950, the same should have been decided as per the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. According to him, as per Section 6 of the Act, 2001, the rent should have been determined as per the formula indicated in the said Section, irrespective of any agreement having been entered into between the parties. He further submitted that the respondent -plaintiff had filed another suit in respect of the premises adjacent to the premises of the petitioner -defendant under the New Act of 2001, and there would be anomaly in the fixation of the standard rent with regard to the two premises which are adjacent each other, if the petitioner is not permitted to amend the written statement and produce the documents with regard to the other suit. However, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Garg for the respondent -plaintiff placing reliance on the decision of Full Bench of this Court in case of Bhag Chand Versus Additional District Judge No.5, Kota and Ors., 2009 3 RajLW 2081, submitted that the controversy raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has already been set at rest by the Full Bench, and in view of Section 32(3)(a) of the Act of 2001, the suits and the proceedings filed under the Repealed Act of 1950 have to be continued under the said old Act as if New Act had not been enacted. According to him, the applications having been filed by the petitioner to delay the proceedings, have been rightly rejected by the court below.