RAJKUMAR JHAMB Vs. PRATAP SINGH HADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this instant petition, petitioner -tenant is assailing the order dated 20/9/2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota in case no. 299/2005 whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was rejected.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the respondent -landlord has instituted a eviction petition against the petitioner -tenant on various grounds including the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity for his two sons Raghuraj Singh and Raghunandan Singh.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the petition, the petitioner -tenant moved an application before the Rent Tribunal asserting that certain subsequent events have occurred which ought to be taken on record by allowing the petitioner -tenant to amend his written statement. The subsequent events asserted are that (a)landlord has received vacant possession of another shop in which he has started business of Ice Cream Parlor (b) on the eastern side of the tenanted shop, where business of STD/PCO was running in the name of 'Hada STD/PCO, business of Zerox, Auto Parts and Accessories has begun.