Ramesh Chand Sharma v. Pradeep Kumar Jain

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.:— The present petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 31.3.2016 whereby Appellate Rent Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, wife of the respondent had purchased flat bearing T3-503 measuring 1491 sq. feet and hence, this is a necessary fact to be brought on record to negate the plea of the respondent landlord that the premises is required for bona fide personal necessity. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Rent Tribunal, Alwar vide impugned judgment dated 31.5.2012 held that the premises let out to the petitioner is required by the landlord for his personal necessity. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, he learnt that Smt. Rekha Jain wife of the respondent landlord had purchased flat for sale consideration of Rs. 34,20,943.48, hence, this fact was necessary to be brought on record by amending the written statement. The Appellate Tribunal having considered the application and reply thereof, held that Smt. Rekha Jain wife of the respondent landlord had applied for the flat and as per letter of allotment, construction of the flat shall be completed in December, 2016.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that it is common knowledge that builders cause delay in completion of the civil work and the actual physical possession to the wife of the respondent can be delayed and there is every possibility that same shall be delivered after December, 2016.

4. As on today, the respondent landlord is not having any other premises in his possession. Furthermore, flat has been purchased by the wife of the respondent landlord. It cannot be ruled out that wife of the respondent may have purchased the flat for investment purposes to part her life long savings. The respondent landlord cannot be compelled to live in a flat when he is having his own house. It is the will and wish of the landlord which has to prevail. Hence, it cannot be said that the application filed by the petitioner tenant has been wrongly rejected by the court below.

5. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.