RAJEEV Vs. DEVI NARAIN MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the impugned order dated 2.7.1996 passed by the learned ADJ No. 5 Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 62/89, whereby the request of the petitioner for filing additional written statement has been rejected by the trial Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 22.12.1986 suit for eviction of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent and reasonable and the bona fide personal necessity of the disputed shop for its use by the plaintiff and his son. The petitioner's father expired on 22.6.1987, during the pendency of the suit and thereafter the legal representatives of the petitioner namely his widow non-petitioner No. 2, his son non-petitioner No. 3 and the main petitioner were substituted and arrayed as parties to the proceedings. After the substitution, written statement was filed by Smt. Raj Devi non-petitioner No. 2. At the time of institution of the suit, the petitioner was a minor and, therefore, a guardian was appointed by the court who filed written statement on his behalf on 12.12.1988. After the petitioner attained the age of majority on 28.5.1994, he discovered on inspection of the pleadings that certain material issues had been omitted from the written statement which was filed on his behalf by his guardian and as a result of this he immediately moved to the trial Court through his counts on 20.11.1994 and filed an application for permission to file additional/amended written statement since certain vital pleas have been omitted to be urged in the original written statement. The said application came to be rejected vide order dated 2.7.1996 against which the present revision has been preferred to this Court.

(2.) DURING the course of hearing it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner whose interest was being looked after earlier by his father when he was a minor and after attaining the age of majority and after the demise of his father, he was entitled to raise an appropriate defence befitting his character as a tenant since he had become the tenant by operation law under Section 3(7)(b) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. Hence the trial Court should have granted permission to the petitioner to raise such pleas which were available to him under law by filing the amended written statement in view of the change in the circumstances. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of the inadvertence of the counsel the party cannot be penalised for the factual omission has been made on this behalf.

(3.) IN support of his contentions advanced at the bar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Nasiruddin and others v. Smt. Noor Jahan and others, 1990(2) RLR 234 and on the Full Bench Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Kedar Nath v. Mohani Devi, 1974 RCR(Rent) 118 (Delhi) : AIR 1974 Delhi 171.