SURENDRA MEHTA Vs. BAPU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ is directed against order dated 13. 4. 2007 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal Udaipur in Original Application (Rent Control) No. 383/04, whereby an application preferred on behalf of the petitioner herein under Section 15 (4) read with Section 21 (1) (2) (3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short `the Act of 2001') seeking leave to file additional reply to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 herein has been rejected.

(2.) THE brief facts in nutshell relevant to the controversy involved in this writ petition are that respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 9 (1) of the Act of 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur for eviction of petitioner from the shop let out to him, inter alia on the ground of reasonable bonafide necessity. It is stated that son of the respondent No. 1 was earlier doing his business in a rented shop in the name and style of ``balaji Earth Movers", at Emarld Tower, Hathi Pole, Udaipur. It is averred in the application preferred before the Rent Tribunal that the landlord of the said shop, had bonafide necessity of the shop for her own use, therefore, the son of the respondent No. 1 had to shift his business at first floor of the suit premises. It is further stated that for carrying out the business of Earth Movers heavy machinery are installed and its operation at first floor is not convenient and the ground floor of the suit premises is only suitable place for running of the said business by son of the respondent No. 1.

(3.) IN the matter of M/s. Ajanta Enterprises vs. Bimla Charan Chatterjee and Anr. (1987 (1) RLR 991) while examining the ambit and scope of provisions of Order 8 Rule 9, C. P. C. this Court held that "in the garb of submitting the rejoinder, a plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas in his plaint so as to alter the basis of his plaint. IN a rejoinder he has to simply explain if certain additional facts have been mentioned in the written- statement and the plaintiff cannot be allowed to come-forward with an entirely new case in his rejoinder. The position of the plaintiff, to make changes in his plaint, cannot be the same as changes which can be allowed to be made in the written-statement, for the reason that a defendant may be allowed to make amendments, which may be different from his earlier pleas but the plaintiff cannot be allowed to alter his original cause of action on which he has come before the Court. On this process, it can be said that the plaintiff cannot by way of rejoinder introduce pleas which are not consistent with earlier pleadings. "