Sangeet Lodha, J.

This petition is directed against order dated 9.12.2015 passed by the Rent Tribunal in Rent Case No.921/14, whereby, an application preferred by the petitioner, seeking leave to amend the reply to the petition, stands rejected.

2. The relevant facts are that respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 18 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act"), for recovery of arrear of rent, possession of the premises leased out and the damages for use and occupation.

3. The petition is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto, inter alia taking a stand that the landlord did not deposit the amount of Urban Development Tax for the year 2007-08 with the Local Authority and therefore, the petitioner herein, could not use the premises for the purpose it was taken on lease. The petitioner has also filed counter claim seeking suspension of payment of rent for the period from September, 2012 to April, 2014, quantified at Rs.5,10,500/-. That apart, the prayer is also made for directions to remove the obstructions created on the way and the staircase.

4. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner preferred an application seeking leave to amend the petition, stating that subsequent to the filing of the petition, the respondent-landlord has caused damage to the property leased out by demolishing the underground water tank as also the over head water tank and has obstructed the way to the terrace. That apart, the allegations are also levelled regarding the landlord indulging in misbehaving with the customers of the petitioner. The petitioner prayed for incorporation of the relevant facts in this regard in the reply to the petition filed. The application stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal, by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has specifically set out the claim that the respondent-landlord has failed to adhered to the terms and conditions of the lease and deprived the petitioner from using the rented premises and therefore, the rent payable deserves to be suspended. Learned counsel submitted that during the pendency of the petition, the landlord further damaged the terrace by razing off one full floor just above the rented premises seriously prejudicing the use of the rented premises. That apart, the conduct of the landlord in creating obstructions and nuisance in the peaceful use of the rented premises by the petitioner, is relevant and thus, the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in not permitting the amendment sought for. Learned counsel would submit that the Rent Tribunal has erred in refusing the amendment prayed for, observing that the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment, do not show that the position of the disputed premises has been changed.

6. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there was no proof placed on record by the petitioner showing that by way of any act of the respondents, the damage was caused to the rented premises. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the petitioner is defaulter in payment of rent and in the petition filed by the petitioner, for recovery of possession after termination of the tenancy, in terms of Section 106 of the Act of 1882, the facts sought to be incorporated by way of amendment, are absolutely irrelevant. Learned counsel would submit that even with regard to counter claim of the petitioner for suspension of payment of rent for the period of September, 2012 to April, 2014, the facts sought to be incorporated regarding alleged damage to the rented premises, subsequent to the filing of the petition, which are absolutely false, also cannot be considered to be relevant to the lis between the parties. Learned counsel submitted that the court below after due examination of the material on record, has categorically observed that there is nothing on record suggesting that during the pendency of the p