GAJENDRA SINGH LODHA Vs. BHANWAR LAL KOTHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the order Annx. 6 dated 9. 4. 2008 passed by respondent No. 2 the Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur (for short, "the Appellate Court" hereinafter) to the extent of dismissing the application Annx. 3 filed by the petitioner under O. 6 R. 17 CPC has been challenged.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that respondent No. 1, the plaintiff, filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, "the Old Act" hereinafter) for eviction of the suit premises i. e. shop No. 13 situated at Ashwini Market, Udaipur and arrears of rent. THE eviction was sought on the ground of reasonable and bona fide personal necessity of the respondent- plaintiff, the landlord. THE petitioner-defendant, the tenant, contested the suit and ultimately the suit came to be decreed, against which the petitioner-defendant filed an appeal before the respondent No. 2, the Appellate Court. During pendency of the appeal, there had been subsequent change in the circumstances, by which, according to the petitioner-defendant, the reasonable and bona fide need of the respondent-plaintiff for the suit premises did not survive and, therefore he filed an application under O. 6 R. 17 CPC (Annx. 3) seeking amendment in the written statement. That application came to be dismissed by the respondent No. 2, the Appellate Court, vide impugned order Annx. 6 dated 9. 4. 2008. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) IN Gulabbai vs. Nalin Narsi Vohra & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp" On a conspectus of all these decisions rendered by this Court, it is now beyond the pale of any doubt that in appropriate cases events subsequent to the filing of the suit can be taken notice of and can be duly considered provided the same is relevant in determining the question of bona fide requirement. Therefore, the High Court was right in duly considering the new facts and circumstances that have been brought to the notice of the Court by the application for additional evidence filed under O. 41 R. 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in coming to a firm finding that the plaintiff-appellant constructed a spacious bungalow where she with the members of her family had been residing, there is no reasonable and bona fide requirement for the plaintiff to get a decree of ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises inasmuch as the first floor of the suit premises as well as the second floor could be conveniently used for opening the office of Tax Consultancy of plaintiff's husband who previously worked with one Mr. Gandhi in a partnership firm which partnership had been dissolved after Mr. Gandhi's son came to practice with his father. "