- (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 20.04.2015 in Eviction Title Suit Nos. 26 of 2006 and 27 of 2006 whereby, application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. has been dismissed, the present writ petitions have been filed.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, initially, a tenancy was created in the name of M/s Laddu Lal Jain. Mr. Laddu Lall Jain was the grandfather of the petitioner namely, Sumermall Jain. Title Eviction Suit No. 105 of 1980 was filed in which an ex parte order dated 07.04.1983 was passed directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises. The defendant handed over possession of one shop and remaining two shops remained in possession of the defendants in Title Eviction Suit Nos. 26 of 2007 and 27 of 2007. It is stated that a new tenancy was created on 27.08.1983 in favour of the present petitioners. In the eviction suits, the defence of the defendants was struck off vide order dated 17.11.2011 for default in depositing arrears of rent. The petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6044 of 2012 along with W.P.(C) No. 6034 of 2012 which were allowed vide order dated 28.02.2013 and the petitioners were permitted to lead evidence. After the plaintiff led evidence, the defendants' evidence was closed on 20.02.2015. Thereafter, husband of the plaintiff who was examined as P.W. 3 was recalled for cross-examination. At this stage, application under Order 6, Rule 17 was filed on 25.03.2015 for incorporating the following facts in the written statement: "8(A) That one another tenant of the suit building namely 'Vivek Traders' vacated his tenanted shop, sometime in the month of January, 2015 and handover vacant possession of the same to the present plaintiff namely Smt. Tanushree Dutta who after receiving possession of the same put lock on the door and is under the custody of the plaintiff. The area of the suit premises and the area of the shop which was vacated by the 'Vivek Traders' and handover vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff is same and identical. 8(B) That if the plaintiff reasonably and in good faith requires the suit premises then he could start her business in the said vacant shop which was vacated by the 'Vivek Traders' and handover vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff wants to evict the defendant from the suit premises with malafide intention, which is against the law. 8(C) That therefore it is clear that the plaintiff does not require the suit premises for her personal use as well as for the use of her husband for starting business and the present suit is only a pretext for illegal eviction of the defendant from the suit premises."
(3.) The said application has been dismissed vide order dated 20.04.2015, against which the present writ petitions have been filed.;