NASEEM Vs. RAMZAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the order dt. 25/2/2019 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), vide which the petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the original petitioners (respondents No. 1 to 4 herein) filed an application under Secs. 9 (a)(f)(i)(j)(m)(ii) and Sec. 6 read with Ss. 18 and 22 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2001"), seeking eviction of the defendants, essentially on the ground of personal need and bonafide necessity. In pursuance to the petition so filed, the non-applicants (petitioner and proforma respondent No. 5 and 6 herein) filed a written statement on 2/7/2011 and denied the plaintiffs' assertion regarding personal need and bonafide necessity qua the subject property.

(3.) After framing of the issues, when the plaintiffs' evidence was recorded and the petition was at the stage of defendants' evidence, they filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 11/8/2016, inter alia, seeking insertion of certain paragraphs as paras No. 9(8)(1) and 9(8)(2) in their written statement, with a view to incorporate requisite pleadings to the effect that original petitioners-landlords were having other residential properties where they could move/shift their family. They also wanted to establish that there was no personal need and bonafide necessity, as far as the suit property situated in Chandawalon Ki Haveli, Ghasmandi, Jodhpur is concerned.