SMT. VIRA SAINI Vs. SMT. KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This revisional application has been filed by the defendant-petitioner impugning an order dated 1.3.1996 passed by the additional Civil Judge (JD), Jaipur City, Jaipur in suit No. 301/1991, whereby the application, as filed by the defendant-petitioner for amendment of the written statement, stood rejected.

(2.) The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant-petitioner on ground of reasonable bona fide necessity for herself. She specifically pleaded that she was suffering from heart disease and was unable to occupy any accommodation in the upper floor and that she had with her living an adopted son as also her husband's elder brother's daughter, who has been forsaken by her husband. Her husband retired from the Indian Air Force and subsequently passed away leaving her behind as his widow. She needed the suit premises for her bona fide and reasonable necessity to facilitate the carrying on of a business by her adopted son. Her specific averment was that she being in an old age and being in an aiding condition, would prefer to shift her residence in the ground floor accommodation. The defendant-petitioner contested the suit denying the case of reasonable and bona fide necessity and further averred that she would be suffering hardship if she would be asked to vacate the premises. As many as seven issues were framed by the trial Court and the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was more or less complete on 30.10.1995 and a date was fixed for evidence of the defendant- petitioner. On that specific date the defendant-petitioner made an application under Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of her written statement contending, inter alia that she wanted to incorporate by way of her additional pleadings that the plaintiff negotiated to sell her property which was in occupation of another tenant Smt. Sudha Sharma and accepted from her an amount of Rs. 5,000.00 on account of earnest money and for another premises belonging to her, she has received Rs. 11,000.00 towards a part of the consideration money by agreeing to sell out the said house and hence her case for bona fide and reasonable necessity was not credible enough to be relied upon. She has a big house consisting of about ten rooms, situated at Mishra Rajaji Ka Rasta, Jaipur City, and some rooms in the said building are still lying vacant and that property, taken by itself, was more than sufficient to satisfy her present needs and she was further more getting about Rs. 5,000.00 by way of rent per month by letting out a part of said building.

(3.) The learned Civil Judge was of the considered view that at the present belated stage there was no necessity of changing the pleadings by way of written statement and that she had quite a substantial opportunity to adduce evidence in this regard, if she wanted so, and that apart, so far as the evidence recording her entering into an agreement to sell out the house, the defendant had not been able to produce any iota of evidence in this regard and she could not also identify the other building that the plaintiff was in possession of.