- (1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants, challenging the order dated 04.12.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) No.3, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.26/2003, whereby the trial court has dismissed the applications dated 07.08.2012 and 13.05.2013 filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendments in the written statement.
(2.) The respondent No.1-original plaintiff Smt. Sita Devi (since deceased) had instituted the suit for eviction against the petitioners-defendants in respect of the suit shop on the ground of default in making payment of rent, of bonafide requirement, etc. It was alleged interalia that the petitioners-defendants were the tenants in the suit shop situated on the ground floor on the monthly rent of Rs.1200/, however the petitioners had committed default, in making payment of rent for more than 6 months. It was also alleged that the said suit shop was bonafidely required for her son named Harish Kumar for his business as her son had to carry on business in another rented premises. The said suit was resisted by the petitioners-defendants by filing the written statement denying the allegations of default in making payment of rent as also the bonafide requirement of the suit shop for the son of the original plaintiff. It appears that the trial court had framed the issues from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff had also commenced. The petitioners-defendants thereafter submitted an application on 07.08.2012 under Order VI Rule 17 seeking amendment in the written statement for incorporating of the paragraph No.3-A, contending interalia that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff Smt. Sita Devi had shifted in her newly purchased house situated at Baldev Nagar, Ajmer and that Shri Chandkaran Dani, the husband of the plaintiff had also expired and her son Harish Kumar alone was carrying on his business. The said application was resisted by the original-plaintiff Sita Devi by filing the reply. In the meantime, the petitioners-defendants on 13.05.2013 made another application under Order VI Rule 17 seeking amendment in the earlier application for incorporating paragraph 3-B, contending interalia that the original-plaintiff Sita Devi had also expired, and the requirement of the suit shop by the son of the plaintiff also did not survive. The trial court vide the impugned order dated 04.12.2013 dismissed both the applications, against which the present petition has been filed.
(3.) It has been vehemently submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Alok Chaturvedi for the petitioners that the subsequent events, namely the death of the husband of the plaintiff and of the plaintiff herself, and the shifting of the residential house by the original-plaintiff Sita Devi were material facts required to be brought on record for the controversy involved in the suit. According to him, pending the suit, the son of the original-plaintiff had also got the possession of the another shop, and therefore, he did not require the suit shop bonafidely. Placing heavy reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Gulabbai Versus Nalin Narsi Vohra and others, 1991 AIR(SC) 1760, Hasmat Rai & Anr. Versus Raghunath Prasad, 1981 3 SCC 103, Om Prakash Gupta Versus Ranbir B. Goyal, 2002 2 SCC 256 and in case of Jai Prakash Gupta (Dead) through LRs. Versus Riyaz Ahmed, 2009 10 SCC 197, as also of this Court in case of Gajendra Singh Lodha versus Bhanwar Lal Kothari & Ors., 2008 4 WLC(Raj) 658, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the applications for bringing on record the subsequent events were wrongly disallowed by the trial court. However, the learned counsel Mr. Rahul Agarwal for the respondents-plaintiffs submitted that the bonafide requirement of the plaintiff on the date of the institution of the suit is required to be considered by the court in the suit for eviction and the applications seeking amendment having been made after the commencement of the evidence only with a view to delay the trial, the same have been rightly dismissed by the trial court. Mr. Agarwal for the respondents has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Gaya Prasad Versus Pradeep Srivastava, 2001 1 RCR(Rent) 221and of this Court in case of Kailash Chand Vs. Gyan Chand Chordia (Jain) decided on 04.02.2014 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16654/2013, in support of his submissions.;