R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -defendant is aggrieved by the order dated 15.10.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jhunjhunu, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for amending the reply submitted by him.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2, Smt. Vinod Devi filed an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Tribunal Act, 2001 (henceforth, 'the Act of 2001, for short) for eviction of the petitioner -defendant, Har Chand @ Harish Chand, from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide necessity. The petitioner -defendant filed his reply to the application and denied the averments made in the application. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner -defendant moved an application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 for amending his reply to the application with regard to the fact that vacant possession of the adjacent shop has been taken by the respondent No. 2. By order dated 15.10.2013, the learned Tribunal dismissed the said application. Hence, this writ petition before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that on 25.5.2013, Manoj Kumar Swami had lodged an fir, wherein he claimed that he was forced to vacate the shop, which is adjacent to shop which is under dispute. This clearly shows the fact that a shop adjacent to shop in dispute has now come in possession of the respondent -plaintiff. Since it was a subsequent development, which would affect the final outcome of the eviction suit, the learned Judge ought to have permitted the amendment in the reply. Secondly, whether the adjacent shop has been vacated and the possession has been handed over to the respondent -plaintiff is a question of fact, which could have been decided only after the petitioner -defendant is granted a chance to prove his stand. Therefore, the rejection of his application is a premature act committed by the Tribunal.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. R.K. Daga, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has vehemently contended that even after the fir was lodged by Mr. Manoj Kumar Swami, after a thorough investigation, the police had submitted a negative Final Report. According to the investigation of the police, the adjacent shop was given by the respondent -plaintiff on rent to Shri Ram. Shri Ram had vacated the shop so that the repair works in the shop could be carried out. Moreover, even after 24.5.2013, Shri Ram has been continuously paying rent for the said shop to the respondent -plaintiff. Moreover, an affidavit has been submitted by Shri Ram to the police, clearly stating that the shop was vacated temporarily for the purpose of carrying out repair works in the shop. In his affidavit he has also submitted the fact that he has been paying the rental amount to the respondent -plaintiff. Thus, the possession continues to be with Shri Ram, who happens to be tenant of the respondent -plaintiff. Lastly, the petitioner -defendant has not submitted any evidence to even make out in prima facie case for carrying out any amendment in his reply. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.;