KISHAN PRASAD Vs. VISHNU KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18/5/2015 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bharatpur in Appellate Rent Tribunal Case No.1 of 2013, whereby the Appellate Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner-appellant-defendant seeking amendment in the written statement in the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking eviction of the petitioner under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').

(2.) In the instant case, it appears that the application (suit) of the respondent-plaintiff filed before the Rent Tribunal seeking eviction of the petitioner-defendant was decreed by the Rent Tribunal on the ground that the respondent required the suit shop for his bonafide requirement, vide the order dated 3/11/2002. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal under Section 19(6) of the said Act. Pending the said appeal, the petitioner had filed an application seeking amendment in the written statement filed by him before the Rent Tribunal in the suit contending therein that the suit shop was not suitable for the business of hardware and painting, for which the respondent-plaintiff had shown his requirement to carry on the business. The said application was resisted by the respondent by filing the reply. The Appellate Tribunal vide the impugned order has rejected the said application, against which the present petition has been filed.

(3.) It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Alok Garg for the petitioner relying upon various decisions of the Apex Court that the amendment in the written statement at the appellate stage was permissible. He has relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in case of Mahila Ramkali Devi & Ors. vs. Nandram (D) through LRs & Ors (Civil Apeal No.2366 of 2010), decided on 14th May, 2015, Sushil Kumar Jain vs. Manoj Kumar & Anr, 2009 2 DNJ 517 & North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das(Dead) By LRs, 2008 8 SCC 511. He also submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has not given sufficient reasons for rejecting the application of the petitioner, and that the amendment proposed would not change the nature of the defence taken by the petitioner, nor would prejudice the right of the respondent.