Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 26.08.2016 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Pali, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer for allowing him to amend his written statement filed before the Rent Tribunal, Pali has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 filed an eviction petition under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001') against the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal. The said eviction petition was filed on the grounds of bonafide necessity, enhancement of rent and recovery of due rent. The Rent Tribunal had framed as many as six issues, out of which issue Nos.1 and 5 were regarding the bonafide necessity of the respondent No. 2 and the availability of the alternate premises. The Rent Tribunal decided the eviction petition vide judgment dated 26.03.2012, whereby the issue Nos.1 and 5 regarding the bonafide necessity and availability of the alternate premises respectively were decided in favour of the respondent No. 2 and against the petitioner and the other issue Nos.2 and 3 were also been decided in favour of the respondent No. 2 and against the petitioner. In respect of issue No. 4, the Rent Tribunal observed that since the respondent No. 2 had paid sufficient court fee on 15.03.2012, the same was not necessary to be decided.
(2.) Being aggrieved with the order dated 26.03.2012 passed by the Rent Tribunal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner moved an application under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC on 09.09.2015 and produced the copies of some of the income tax returns of the son of the respondent No. 2 for the years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2015-2016. Thereafter, the petitioner moved another application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer that he may be allowed to amend his reply filed before the Rent Tribunal in response to the eviction petition. The petitioner claimed that as the respondent No. 2 shown bonafide necessity of the premises in question for the purpose of his son to start his own business of immitation jewellery but now after the decision of the Rent Tribunal, the son of the respondent No. 2 has started his own business in the name of Jain Pickles, therefore, the said facts are necessary to be incorporated in the reply.
(3.) The Rent Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 19.08.2016 ordered that the counsel for the respondent No. 2 admitted the documents submitted by the petitioner by application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC. Thereafter, it has recorded in the order dated 19.08.2016 that the arguments on the application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC had been heard and the matter was posted for order on the said application on 26.08.2016.;