The reasonable and bona fide necessity has to be adjudged based on the position existing on the day the rent eviction application is filed, and subsequent events without material bearing cannot be incorporated by way of amendment in the reply.

ORDER

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners/tenants against the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Alwar in Civil Cross Appeal (Rent) No.38/2020 whereby, an application filed by them under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking an amendment in the reply, has been dismissed.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondent No.1/landlord filed a rent eviction application against the petitioners and proforma respondents No.2 to 8 under Section 9 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, 'the Act of 2001') seeking eviction on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide necessity and acquisition of alternative accommodation. The learned Rent Tribunal, vide its judgment dated 19.03.2020, issued recovery certificate qua acquisition of alternative accommodation and decided the issue of reasonable and bona fide necessity against the landlord. The judgment dated 19.03.2020 was assailed by the petitioners by way of an appeal wherein the respondent No.1 filed his cross objections. In the cross objections, the petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the reply on account of subsequent event, i.e., filing of an application by the wife of the respondent No.1 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity, 'the Act of 2005') with certain averments touching the issue of a reasonable and bona fide necessity. This application has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 21.04.2022, impugned herein.

3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal erred in failing to appreciate that facts sought to be incorporated in the reply arose on account of subsequent event having material bearing on the issue of reasonable and bona fide necessity. He further submitted that in support of additional evidence sought to be placed on record alongwith their application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, existence of supporting pleading was necessary. Learned counsel, relying upon judgments of this Court in the cases of Ravindran Vs. Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in S.B Civil Writ Petition No.9229/2009 & Naimuzzama Khan Vs. Shaukat Ali & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6186/2015, submitted that in case their application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC does not find favour, they may be permitted to bring the subsequent event on record by way of an affidavit with liberty to the respondent No.1 to file counter affidavit which may be considered by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeal. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the order impugned dated 21.04.2022 be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the application filed by the petitioners does not disclose any such subsequent event which can be said to have any material bearing on the issue of reasonable and bona fide necessity. He submitted that the petitioners have already stated almost all the facts sought to be incorporated by way of the amendment, in their reply to the original application. He submitted that the application filed by the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking on record additional evidence is yet to be decided and hence, presupposing that the same would be allowed, the petitioners cannot be permitted to make amendment in the pleadings in support thereof. He further submitted that it is a well established legal position that reasonable and bona fide necessity has to be adjudged on the position obtaining on the day the rent application is filed and each and every subsequent event cannot be permitted to be incorporated by way of an amendment. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. In the rent eviction application filed by the respondent No.1 in the year 2015, he has expressed reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit