- (1.) THE petitioner-tenant has laid this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 1st of March 2013 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, whereby the application of the petitioner-tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 was rejected.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the proposed amendment was necessary for adjudication of the lis involved in the matter and therefore by declining the prayer of the petitioner-tenant, the learned Tribunal has committed grave and serious error of law which is apparent on the face of record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that in the matters of amendment, the Courts are required to adopt a very lenient and pragmatic approach, and for avoiding multiplicity of proceedings normally prayer for amendment cannot be refused. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision rendered in case of Murlidhar Vs. Nand Kishore & Anr. [RLW 2006 (2) Raj. 1687]. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the materials on record and the impugned order.
(3.) THE Apex Court in case of Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Shrivastava (AIR 2001 SC 803) in the matter of amendment in respect of subsequent developments has made following observations in Para 13 : 13. In our opinion, the subsequent events to overshadow the genuineness of the need must be of such nature and of such a dimension that the need propounded by the petitioning party should have been completely eclipsed by such subsequent events. A three- Judge Bench of this Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs. Motor and General Traders [1975 (1) SCC 770] which pointed to the need for re-moulding the reliefs on the strength of subsequent events affecting the cause of action in the field of rent control litigation, forewarned that cognizance of such subsequent events should be taken very cautiously. This is what learned Judges of the Bench said then: "We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceedings provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed." ;