DEVI LAL Vs. NATHU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Sec. 115, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), against the order dated 26.7.:995 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No. 171/86.

(2.) For the convenient disposal of this petition, it transpires that the plaintiff - non-petitioner instituted a suit for eviction of the defendant - petitioner from the suit premises, inter alia, on the ground of bonafide and reasonable personal necessity of suit premises. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant - petitioner moved an application under Order 6 r. 17 of the Code, representing that the plaintiff-non-petitioner had shifted to a. new residential accommodation in the Housing Board Colony and this was an important event having occurred subsequent to the institution of the suit and hence an amendment in the written statement was sought for. This amendment application was dis-allowed by the trial court vide its Against the order dated 26.7.1995 passed by Shri Ajai Singh, Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bhilwara in Civil Original Case No. 171/86 Nanhu Lal Vs. Devi Lal order dated 2.5.94. This order was further subjected to a revision petition (No. 566/94) before the High Court and the same stood dismissed on 11.11.94 thereby upholding the order dated 2.5.94. Again, on 28.2.95, the defendant moved another similar amendment application for allowing amendment in the written statement seeking incorporating amendment in regard to partial eviction as per provisions of sub-section (2) of Sec. 14 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The plaintiff did not file any reply to such application and, lastly, vide its order dated 22.3.95, the learned trial judge, while rejecting such prayer for amendment in the written statement, having regard to the provisions of said sub-section (2) of Sec. 14 of the Act, held that since it was the legal requirement of the law before the court could pass any decree for eviction of the defendant from the tenanted premises and, therefore, the law mandates that parties should he afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence for and against such partial eviction, if any and, therefore, he ordered for amendment of the issue in this respect and, accordingly, the issue was amended. The parties were allowed to lead evidence on this fact as well.

(3.) Admittedly, the order dated 22.3.95 was not challenged by either party. As regards the present controversy, while the defendant-petitioner was being examined in-chief before the trial court, the learned counsel for the defendant wanted to examine him in regard to partial eviction of the defendant from the suit premises by asking a question, which as translated, by the petitioner's side, into English, runs as follows :