The amendment sought under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC should be allowed only if the facts were not within the petitioner's knowledge prior to filing the reply.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Beawar, District Ajmer whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/non-applicant/tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, has been dismissed.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondent/applicant filed an eviction application against the petitioner under Section 9 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 (for brevity, ’the Act of 2001’) seeking eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. The petitioner filed his reply to the application on 14.06.2018. After commencement of trial, he moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking an amendment in the reply incorporating the facts that he has deposited a sum of Rs.9 lacs as security with the respondent at the time of taking premises on rent, the premises were not required by the petitioner as per his statement, no rent was due and the respondent has other properties available to him. The application has been dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 06.01.2022, impugned herein.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention of this Court towards the cross-examination of the respondent-Ramkaran Heda (PW1), submitted that he has admitted therein that certain amount was deposited by the petitioner with him which was not returned by him and no rent was due. He submitted that since these facts were revealed during the cross examination of the respondent, the learned Rent Tribunal erred in dismissing the application seeking amendment on the premise that no reason was assigned for not incorporating these facts in his reply. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the order impugned dated 06.01.2022 be quashed and set aside.

Heard. Considered.

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that necessity of incorporation of the facts as to payment of a sum of Rs.9 lacs by way of security or that no rent was due, in the reply arose on account of disclosure of these facts during the cross examination of the respondent as PW1, cannot be countenanced. If the petitioner has made any payment to the respondentlandlord towards security at the time of taking the premises on rent or that no rent was due, the facts were within his knowledge prior to filing reply to the rent application way back on 14th June, 2018. It has not been petitioner’s case that he made this advance payment after submission of the reply. The facts sought to be incorporated based on the statement made by the respondent during his cross examination, have rightly not been permitted to be incorporated in the reply by way of an amendment. Therefore, the learned Rent Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.

5. Further, the petitioner has moved the application seeking amendment in the reply after commencement of trial; rather, after the cross-examination of the respondent as PW1. In these circumstances, the application was hit by proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as the amendment sought pertained to the facts which were in existence as also in the knowledge of the petitioner prior to filing of the reply. This Court has gone through the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and finds that it is bereft of any reason as to why the facts sought to be incorporated by way of amendment, were not averred in the reply.

6. The findings recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal are well reasoned which do not suffer from any perversity or patent jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.