- (1.) BY this instant petition, petitioner -tenant is assailing the order dated 20/9/2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota in case no. 299/2005 whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was rejected.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the respondent -landlord has instituted a eviction petition against the petitioner -tenant on various grounds including the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity for his two sons Raghuraj Singh and Raghunandan Singh.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the petition, the petitioner -tenant moved an application before the Rent Tribunal asserting that certain subsequent events have occurred which ought to be taken on record by allowing the petitioner -tenant to amend his written statement. The subsequent events asserted are that (a)landlord has received vacant possession of another shop in which he has started business of Ice Cream Parlor (b) on the eastern side of the tenanted shop, where business of STD/PCO was running in the name of 'Hada STD/PCO, business of Zerox, Auto Parts and Accessories has begun. The respondent -landlord submitted reply to the application moved by the tenant and admitted that he has received possession of a shop but asserted that the same is being used by his son Raghunandan for Ice Cream Parlour but the necessity of his another son Raghuraj Singh remained intact. For the other alleged incident, the landlord asserted that on the eastern side of tenanted shop, there was a small shop in which his daughter -in -law Nihal Kumari was already conducting STD/PCO business and She has also started the business of auto parts and zerox along with such business and that these facts had no bearing on the necessity of Raguraj Singh. He further asserted that the application was highly belated and the case was at the stage of final hearing and landlord as well as their witnesses have been cross -examined on these facts and therefore, there was no need for allowing the amendment application, which was merely a dilatory tactics adopted by the tenant.;