Honble VYAS, J.–In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner dated 1.9.2007 in appeal No. 141/2004 and further prayed that application filed by the petitioner before Appellate Rent Tribunal under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for seeking amendment in written statement may kindly be allowed.

(2). The facts, inter alia, stated in the writ petition are that an application under Section 9(i), (j) & (k) of the Rent Control Act, 2001 for eviction of shop situated near Vishwajyoty Cinema Street, inside cotgate, Bikaner was filed by Late Mohan Lal- father of respondent No. 2 and 3. The main ground raised by the applicant Mohanlal that his son Hanuman is unemployed and wants to do the business of electric parts. Since he is not having shop to run the said business, as such, while showing bonafide necessity, it was prayed before the Tribunal that eviction decree may be passed. The petitioner-non-applicant filed his written statement in the said eviction suit. The suit was decreed in favour of respondents-plaintiff vide judgment dated 24.9.2004.

(3). Against the judgment dated 24.9.2004, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner. According to the petitioner during pendency of the appeal an important fact came to his knowledge that Hanuman son of Mohanlal-present respondent No. 2 has got employment as Lower Division Clerk in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Branch-Godu, Tehsil-Kolayat, District Bikaner and he has joined the services, therefore, there remains no bonafide necessity for eviction of said shop.

(4). Having come to know of this fact, the petitioner moved an application before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 for seeking amendment in the written statement by way of incorporating the ground that the ground of bonafide necessity ceased to exist due to appointment of Hanuman in SBBJ Bank, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed reply to the application filed by the petitioner. The Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner rejected the said application for amendment of written statement vide impugned order dated 1.9.2007.

(5). Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that while rejecting the application for amendment in written statement, the learned Appellate Tribunal erred in law because at any stage, even at appellate stage, amendment can be sought under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, so also, under Section 21 of the Act of 2001, which deals with the procedure and powers of the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal under which Tribunals can adopt such procedure, which appears to it necessary in the interest of justice, therefore, the Tribunal was under an obligation to allow the application filed by the petitioner in the interest of justice when it was specifically brought to its notice that the ground of bonafide necessity does not survive now, because respondent No. 2 Hanuman got appointment in the SBBJ Bank. But, the learned Appellate Tribunal illegally and arbitrarily rejected the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for deciding the real controversy in question between the parties, it is necessary for the Appellate Court to provide an opportunity to the petitioner for amending the written statement, though the fact, which is proposed to be introduced by way of amendment in written statement was not in existence at the time of final adjudication of the matter by the Rent Tribunal during trial, but if any important fact arose during pendency of proceedings even at appellate stage then petitioner is entitled to incorporate the said ground in the written statement by way of seeking amendment.

(6). Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court towards Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and urged that amendment can be granted at any s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document