- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur whereby the application submitted by the petitioner-tenant under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was dismissed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-applicants filed eviction application against the petitioner-tenant before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur. During pendency of the eviction application before the tribunal, the petitioner-tenant has filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 read with Section 151 C.P.C. which was dismissed by the Tribunal for summoning certain documents from respondents vide order dated 16.09.2019. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant submitted that the respondents-landlord is having alternative accommodation and he has shown certain properties in the income tax return, therefore, the Rent Tribunal has committed illegality in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. Counsel further submits that these documents are necessary for deciding the eviction application.
(3.) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar Bhatia Vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia reported in (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 87 in which para 12 has held as under:- "12. This being the position, the case which was sought to be set up in the proposed amendment was an elaboration of what was stated in the written statement. The High Court has in the exercise of its jurisdiction Under Article 227 of the Constitution entered upon the merits of the case which was sought to be set up by the Appellant in the amendment. This is impermissible. Whether an amendment should be allowed is not dependent on whether the case which is proposed to be set up will eventually succeed at the trial. In enquiring into merits, the High Court transgressed the limitations on its jurisdiction Under Article 227. In Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd ., this Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court Under Article 227 is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction. In the exercise of its jurisdiction Under Article 227 , the High Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal and it is not open to it to review or reassess the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal has passed an order. The Trial Court had in the considered exercise of its jurisdiction allowed the amendment of the written statement Under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There was no reason for the High Court to interfere Under Article 227. Allowing the amendment would not amount to the withdrawal of an admission contained in the written statement (as submitted by the Respondent) since the amendment sought to elaborate upon an existing defence. It would also be necessary to note that it was on 21.09.2013 that an amendment of the plaint was allowed by the Trial Court, following which the Appellant had filed a written statement to the amended plaint incorporating its defence. The amendment would cause no prejudice to the Plaintiff." ;