ASHOK KUMAR Vs. SURESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's Revision against an order of the trial court allowing amendment of the plaint at the instance of landlord to add a fresh ground of ejectment in the suit.

(2.) IN the suit, as filed originally, two grounds for ejectment were pleaded, (1) default in payment of rent, and (2) personal necessity in regard to the commercial premises in dispute for one of the brothers of the landlord to carry on commercial work in the premises. The suit was contested by the tenant on both the grounds and regarding personal necessity it was pleaded by him that rent note was executed between the parties within five years of the filing of the suit and by virtue of Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereafter for short 'the Act'), a suit in regard to commercial premises on the ground of personal necessity is not maintainable within five years of the execution of rent note or the agreement of tenancy and the issue was framed and thereafter the landlord withdrew the ground of personal necessity and the case proceeded on the ground of default only.

(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the court below erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the amendment on the peculiar facts of this case. Section 14(3) of the Act proceeds with a non-obstante clause starting with the words, "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no suit for eviction from the premises let out for commercial or business purposes shall lie against a tenant on the ground set forth in clause (h) of sub- section (1) of Section 13 before the expiry of five years from the date the premises were let out to the tenant."