Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dt. 3.1.14 of Rent Tribunal, Udaipur, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking leave to amend the reply to the petition for eviction preferred on behalf of the respondent -landlord, stands rejected. The respondent -landlord filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner -tenant from premises, a shop, inter alia on the ground that the premises is required to carry out building work because it has become unsafe for human habitation. The petition is being contested by the petitioner by filing a written statement thereto. The evidence of the respondent -landlord stands concluded and the matter is fixed for examination of the petitioner's witnesses.
(2.) AT this stage, the petitioner preferred an application seeking leave to amend the reply stating that on 10.12.13, he has come to know that the respondent -landlord was granted permission by the Municipal Council, Udaipur for construction of second floor over the existing premises and therefore, the stand taken by the respondent -landlord regarding dilapidated condition of the premises is incorrect. The application stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned observing that the position of the disputed premises in the year 1980 is irrelevant for the determination of the issue of the disputed premises being in dilapidated condition raised in the year 2010 and therefore, at this belated stage, the amendment prayed for, cannot be allowed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the amendment sought for is absolutely necessary inasmuch as, it will falsify the stand taken by the respondent -landlord that the premises has become unsafe for human habitation. Learned counsel submitted that the amendment sought for could not have been disallowed by the Court below on the ground that the document sought to be produced by the petitioner will cause prejudice to the respondent -landlord.;