NARESH KUMAR Vs. KHUSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in the Rent Petition No.59/2009 has been challenged by the petitioner-defendant by way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment in the written statement.

(2.) The respondent Khushi Ram had filed the eviction petition before the Tribunal seeking eviction of the petitioner-defendant on the ground that he required the suit shop for his son, who wanted to carry on his business in the said premises. It appears that the petitioner-defendant resisted the said eviction petition by filing the written statement. When the said petition was fixed for final hearing, the petitioner-defendant had submitted the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment in the written statement contending interalia that son of the respondent had got the service in one Career Point Coaching Institute and he was no more unemployed. According to the petitioner, the said subsequent event was required to be brought on record and therefore the application seeking the amendment in the written statement was filed. The Tribunal after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, dismissed the said application vide the impugned order, against which the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Ravi Kumar Kasliwal for the petitioner placing heavy reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Seshambal (dead) through L.R.s. v. M/s. Chelur Corporation, Chelur Building and Ors., AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1521 and in case of Jai Prakash Gupta (Dead) through LRs. v. Riyaz Ahamad and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 197, submitted that the subsequent events which took place after the filing of the suit, having material bearing on the right to relief claimed by the party, should be permitted to be brought on record by way of amendment in the pleadings. According to him, the ground on which the respondent had sought to evict the petitioner did not survive as the son of the respondent had got the job pending the suit, and therefore such fact would have material bearing on the relief claimed by the respondent-plaintiff. However, the learned counsel Mr. Abhi Goyal for the respondent placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, (2001) 2 SCC 604 and of this Court in case of Kailash Chand v. Gyan Chand Chordia (Jain) and Anr., 2014 (2) WLC (Raj.) 480, submitted that every subsequent event need not be permitted to be brought on record if same was not germane to the relief claimed. He further submitted that the son of the respondent had got the temporary service in the coaching institution, however his services have already been terminated and again he is unemployed, and that in any case his son wanted to carry on business in the suit premises, and therefore the subsequent event did not have any material bearing on the relief claimed by the respondent-plaintiff.