Honble PANWAR, J—By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the order Annx. 6 dated 9.4.2008 passed by respondent No. 2 the Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur (for short, "the Appellate Court" hereinafter) to the extent of dismissing the application Annx. 3 filed by the petitioner under O.6 R. 17 CPC has been challenged.

(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that respondent No. 1, the plaintiff, filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, "the Old Act" hereinafter) for eviction of the suit premises i.e. shop No. 13 situated at Ashwini Market, Udaipur and arrears of rent. The eviction was sought on the ground of reasonable and bona fide personal necessity of the respondent- plaintiff, the landlord. The petitioner-defendant, the tenant, contested the suit and ultimately the suit came to be decreed, against which the petitioner-defendant filed an appeal before the respondent No. 2, the Appellate Court. During pendency of the appeal, there had been subsequent change in the circumstances, by which, according to the petitioner-defendant, the reasonable and bona fide need of the respondent-plaintiff for the suit premises did not survive and, therefore he filed an application under O. 6 R. 17 CPC (Annx. 3) seeking amendment in the written statement. That application came to be dismissed by the respondent No. 2, the Appellate Court, vide impugned order Annx. 6 dated 9.4.2008. Hence this writ petition.

(3). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ record as also the impugned order Annx. 6 dated 9.4.2008.

(4). It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit on the ground that the disputed shop is needed for his son Kailash for establishing a restaurant. Respondent-plaintiff subsequently came with the case, as averred in the plaint Annx. 1, that respondent- plaintiff wanted to establish a restaurant for his son Kailash by removing the wall between the disputed shop and the shop adjacent thereto so as to run the restaurant to serve the break-fast, south-Indian dish, cold and hot drinks, ice-cream etc. to customers, as also to sell milk products like chocolets, brakery items etc. on a counter; and the other part of the shop will be utilized for establishing a "Bhojnalaya", half portion of which will be used for dinning hall and half for kitchen. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant further submits that the petitioner received the information through one Shanker Singh that the respondent-plaintiffs son Kailash has already started the business in partnership under the name and style of "Green- Valley Marble" and during the Financial Years 2004-05 and 2005- 06, the total sell was of Rs. 30,37,048/- and 29,76,442/- respectively, which shows that respondent-plaintiffs son Kailash has been fully established in the business and as such there remains no further need of the shop in question and the ground seeking eviction of the disputed shop on the basis of personal, reasonable and bona fide necessity of the respondent-plaintiffs son Kailash does not subsist and this being the subsequent event and material to decide the controversy between the parties, this fact was sought to be introduced by amendment in the written statement. It has further been submitted that without being pleaded in the written statement, it will not be possible, rather it will not be permissible for the petitioner-defendant to contend and establish that the respondent-plaintiff is not having personal, reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit premises and, therefore, he is not entitled for eviction of the shop in question. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has relied on the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in Gulabbai vs. Nalin Narsi Vohra & Ors., AI

Click Here to Read the rest of this document