MAHENDRA SINGH GEHLOT Vs. GOPAL ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the plaintiff-petitioner seeks to question the order dated 08. 12. 2007 (Annex. 12) as passed by the learned Trial Court allowing an application for amendment of the written statement as moved by the defendants-respondents. The plaintiff-petitioner essentially contends that the amendment operates to his prejudice in taking away an accrued right; and that the amendment could not have been allowed after the trial had commenced.

(2.) THE background facts and relevant aspects of the matter are that the plaintiff-petitioner has filed the suit (C. O. No. 20/2003 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Jodhpur) for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendants-respondents in relation to a shop situated outside Sojati Gate, Jodhpur with the averments in the plaint (Annex. 13), inter alia, that the shop in question is of his ownership and had earlier been of the ownership of his aunt Dr. Parvati Gehlot; that the suit shop was let to Swaroopji, the father of the defendants, by Dr. Parvati Gehlot in the childhood of the plaintiff; that the tenant Swaroopji started his business in the suit shop in the name of Shyam Provision Store; that until the father of the defendants was alive and until the then owner Dr. Parvati Gehlot was alive, they continued to pay and receive the rent as settled between them; that afterwards, the defendants continued to carry on business in the name of Shyam Provision Store and entered into an oral agreement with the plaintiff to make payment of rent at Rs. 700/- per month and made such payment until 30. 09. 1999 but not thereafter; that upon the plaintiff demanding the due rent, the defendants stated slump in their business and sought time to make payment; that appreciating their request, earlier the plaintiff did not press hard for payment of rent but despite later demands, the defendants have not made any payment and are liable to pay Rs. 25,200/- towards due rent for last three years. THE plaintiff has averred that the defendants are defaulters in payment of rent and has also averred about his reasonable and bonafide requirement of the suit shop for establishing an office for sale and purchase of immovable property with the submission that he is in dire need of money for higher education of his son and daughter-in-law who are to pursue their specialized medical studies. THE plaintiff has, thus, sought the decree for the said amount towards arrears of rent and for eviction on the grounds of default and reasonable and bona fide requirement.

(3.) IT appears further that in this suit, the learned Trial Court proceeded to make provisional determination of rent by the order dated 06. 10. 2006 (Annex. 5) while noticing the assertion of the plaintiff-petitioner about the suit property having been bequeathed to him by Parvati Gehlot and the admission of the defendants of themselves being the tenants of the heirs of Dr. Govind Singh. The learned Trial Court observed that if not as successor of Parvati Gehlot, the plaintiff nevertheless remains the landlord as an heir of Dr. Govind Singh; and even if there were other co-owners of the property, the law remains settled that any one of the co-owners could maintain the suit for eviction. The said order and other aspects being not directly related to the prayer for amendment of the written statement need not be dilated upon any further in this order; but have been referred to indicate the nature of dispute, and the respective position of the parties.