R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC for deleting two issues framed by the learned trial court, the petitioner has approached this court.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 14.9.1999 the petitioner filed a civil suit for eviction, arrears of rent and permanent injunction against Chandra Prakash, the defendant-respondent No.1 before this court. In the plaint, the petitioner has claimed that the suit premises were rented out for Rs.00/- per month. The respondent had paid the rent till April, 1997. However, thereafter no rent has been paid. Therefore, he has committed a default for more than six months. The petitioner further claimed that the defendant denied his title as landlord and declared himself to be the owner of the property in dispute. The respondent filed written statement and denied the averments of the plaint. Subsequently issues were framed by the learned trial court. However, neither in the plaint, nor in the written statement there was any averment to the effect that the suit premises was needed for bona fide necessity. The specific grounds for seeking eviction were default in payment of rent, and denial of title. Yet the issues No.7 and 8 were framed with regard to partial eviction, and with regard to comparative hardship that may be suffered by the tenant in comparison to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The petitioner filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC wherein he pleaded that since neither in the plaint, nor in the written statement referred to the bona fide necessity of the petitioner-landlord, issues No.7 and 8 were irrelevant. Therefore, they should be deleted. However, by order dated 23.9.2013 the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this court.
(3.) Mr. Abhi Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the question of comparative hardship would arise only in case the eviction suit were filed on the basis of bona fide necessity. However, the present suit has not been filed on the basis of bona fide necessity. Therefore, the application of Section 14(2) of the Rent Control Act, 1950, and framing of issues No.7 and 8 is inexplicable. Needlessly, two issues have been framed which are not even germane to the controversy in issue. Secondly, the reasoning given by the learned Magistrate is highly misplaced. Section 14 is absolutely inapplicable to the present case.;