AJIT SINGH Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the petitioner tenant has been preferred against the order of learned Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 1, Pali against his order dated 6-4-98 by which he refused to make amendments in the written statement of tenant and dismissed the application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the impugned order.

(3.) Briefly stated, Sohanlal had filed a civil suit for eviction of premises on the ground that his son Dr. Arun Kumar who is a medical practitioner wanted to open his clinic in the demised premises which is on rent with the petitioner. Sohanlal died during the pendency of the civil suit on 20-1-96. His wife also expired during the pendency of the suit. Initially during his statement, Sohanlal deposed that he was having four rooms, store and a kitchen etc. out of which one room was being used as his bed room, the other by his son Dr. Arun Kumar, third one was being used as a consultation room and the fourth room was being used as guest room. Besides the extra room was being used as study room for children. It has been submitted that Sohanlal had filed a civil suit No. 73/90 for permanent injunction praying that the printing press in the demised premises may be closed but later on he did not press the prayer to close the press. In this suit the Court had come to the conclusion that Sohanlal was having other premises as well. The defendant prayed by application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. to add the plea that the plaintiff respondents were having these premises and as such landlords' reasonable and bona fide necessity for the demised premises was a hoax. The landlords were having alternate accommodation and as such the demised premises were not bona fide required for the purpose for which the suit was filed. The trial Court dismissed the petition by the impugned order.