SMT. RASHIDA @ RASEEDA Vs. SMT. SHAHIDA BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter 'the tenant') and perused the impugned order dated 21-3-2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Rent Tribunal') whereby the tenant's application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of reply to the eviction petition has been dismissed.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the application for amendment of the reply to the eviction petition was filed by the tenant in the year 2014, even while the reply to eviction petition was filed by him in the year 2009, after a delay of five years. Aside of aforesaid, the Tribunal found that the application was based on facts which were in the knowledge of the tenant at the time of reply being filed and therefore there was no justifiable cause for entertaining the application for amendment. Further the application was based on facts not relevant to the determination of the issue in the eviction petition.

(3.) I am of the considered view that reasons recorded in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal are based on objective consideration of facts before it. The application for amendment of reply to eviction petition by the tenant was a recourse to delay the disposal of the eviction petition. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal in its discretion is neither vitiated by any jurisdictional error or perversity.