RATHORE, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 1. 11. 2004 passed by the Trial Court on the application moved on behalf of the plaintiff respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC by which the amendment has been allowed.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that since the plaintiff respondent No. 1 and 2 filed a civil suit for eviction of property under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 stating therein that the petitioners are tenant in their premises and the premises was let-out to them in the year 1985 on the agreed rent of Rs. 6000/- p. m. and in the rent note there was the condition that after expiry of every two years the 10% of the rent will be increased. As per this clause at the time of filing of suit the agreed rent was Rs. 9663/- and in the year 1997 it was further enhanced at the rate of 10% the tune of Rs. 10,630/- pursuant to the agreement dated 11. 6. 85. The petitioners defendant have filed written statement to the plaint and denied the averments made by the plaintiff. After framing the issues on 28. 5. 2001 the plaintiff respondents filed an application under order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment and addition in para No. 10 of the plaint stating therein that since last some time the great trade development has been taken place in the area where the premises is situated therefore the market value of the premises has been enhanced. In these circumstances the rent of the premises should be Rs. 60,000/- in the interest of justice and house tax also should be Rs. 4,500/ -. The plaintiff sought amendment also in the relief clause A. Since the aforesaid application is allowed by the Trial Court and being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 1. 11. 2004 the petitioners defendant submit that allowing the amendment will change the nature of the suit. The plaintiff respondents by way of amendment tried to make out a new case, which is not permissible under the law particularly in the circumstances when the relief, which has been sought under the provisions of Section 6 of Rent Control Act 1950, which has been repealed w. e. f. 1. 4. 2003 and admittedly the application for amendment was filed on 19. 7. 2004, therefore, Section 6 of Rent Control Act 1950 was not in force when the application has been filed. It is further submitted that the Trial Court wrongly interpreted Section 32 of the Rent Control Act, 2001. Learned counsel for the petitioners defendant submits that as there is agreed rent and as per the agreement 10% of the rent is enhanced after completion of two years. Even otherwise if the plaintiff respondents wish to file any application for enhancement of rent, as this is being a separate cause of action, they may file separate suit for the same purpose. Since this present suit is for the eviction and in the eviction suit the plaintiff respondents have made the following prayers: ********
(3.) BY seeking aforesaid prayer the plaintiff has asked for mens profit and as the amendment is allowed by the Trial Court for fixing the standard rent, will be contrary to the prayer sought in the suit for mens profit i. e. with regard to the mens profit. In view of this also the amendment, which has been allowed is contrary to the provisions. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred Order 6 Rule 17, which deals with the amendment of pleadings. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. After referring the Order 6 Rule 17 learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the controversy in the suit is with regard to the eviction, the relief is claimed in the suit for eviction not for the standard rent determination. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred Section 6 (1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which is reproduced as under:- ``fixation of standard rent - Where no rent has been agreed upon or where for any reason the rent agreed upon is claimed to be low or excessive, the landlord or the tenant may institute a suit in the lowest court or competent jurisdiction for fixation of standard rent for any premises. '' ;