SHYAM DAS Vs. RENT TRIBUNAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by the learned Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the written statement/reply to the petition of respondent No. 2 was rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that one room on the second floor of the property in question has become available to the landlord. This room was earlier let out to one Prakash Chand Vijayvargiya by daughter-in-law of respondent No. 2 and has now become available to her. Therefore, her necessity can be fulfilled by that room. It was argued that the entire building is owned by respondent No. 2. In order to create a false defence in her favour, respondent No. 2 by way of internal interim arrangement let out the said room to the above said tenant through her daughter-in-law.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the writ. petition and has argued that sole object of the petitioner in filing the application is to delay the proceedings. In the past also, two such applications were filed by him. Petition was filed way back in Nov., 2003 which is still at the stage of evidence of the petitioner-tenant. It was further argued that no such room as alleged has become available because it has not been vacated by the above mentioned tenant and this fact is, therefore, incorrectly stated by the petitioner.