ADARSH GOYAL Vs. MADANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition by the petitioner-tenant is directed against order dt.26/11/2014 by which the petitioner's applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC have been dismissed by the lower appellate court.

(2.) It is an admitted position that a decree of eviction was passed against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of bonafide & reasonable necessity by the trial court on 20/10/2008 and a regular civil appeal, preferred by the petitioner-tenant, is pending for adjudication before the lower appellate court.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that certain subsequent events have developed during the pendency of the appeal, which ought to be brought on record and for such purposes, the petitioner-tenant moved two applications, one under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amending the written statement and the other under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC for taking certain documents on record. The subsequent events, as claimed by the petitioner-tenant, are that Mahesh Sharma, son of the respondent-landlord, on whose necessity the suit was decreed, during the pendency of the appeal, had been posted as Marketing Manager in M/s. Varrsana Ispat Ltd., Ahmedabad Unit and has built his own residential house in Ahmedabad and hence according to the petitioner-tenant, the necessity of Mahesh Sharma no more survives.