GOVIND RAM Vs. THE RENT TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the above- mentioned writ petitions shall stand disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The prayer in the writ petition is to set aside the order dated 3.12.2016 passed by the Rent Tribunal rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

(3.) The respondent-landlord preferred the eviction petitions under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act praying for a decree of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as of bonafide necessity for his two sons namely Ankit Sethi and Rohit Sethi. The petitioner filed his written statement. A specific stand was taken by the petitioner tenant in the written statement that both Ankit Sethi and Rohit Sethi are not unemployed, in fact they are running a hotel in the name of Sethi Hotel and Restaurant. Subsequently, in pursuance to a raid conducted by the Excise Department, both the sons were arrested in the hotel in question while selling the illegal liquor and an FIR was registered against them. The petitioner-tenant, accordingly filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to permit him to amend the written statement and bring the subsequent events on record which would strengthen the stand that the sons of the respondent-landlord are not unemployed. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has already raised the objection in the written statement that Ankit Sethi and Rohit Sethi are already employed. Thereafter, the petitioner also moved an application under Order 8 Rule 8 Rule 1(3) to place the said documents on record. The said application too was rejected.