/ORDER
Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India lays challenge to an order dated 23.7.2019 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal'), whereby petitioners' amendment application dated 26.9.2018 has been rejected.
2. Briefly narrated the facts appertain are that on 16.12.2003, late Chandmal instituted a petition for eviction against the present petitioners under Section 6 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 for personal bonafide necessity of his son Dinesh.
3. After filing of the written statement, the original petitioner Chandmal landlord passed away on 27.12.2013.
4. On 26.9.2018 when the issues had been framed, an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the written statement came to be filed by the present petitioners-tenants, inter alia, contending that Chandmal had filed his petition seeking petitioners' eviction on the bonafide necessity of his son - Dinesh, inter alia, contending that Dinesh will carry on his own business in the suit premises. While indicating that after the death of Chandmal, said Dinesh has started taking care of Chandmal's business at Ahmedabad, the purported necessity for Dinesh has eclipsed and his bonafide necessity does not exist any more.
5. Petitioners' application for amendment was opposed by the respondent-landlord by way of filing specific reply, interalia, submitting that if the amendment in question is allowed, it would change the nature of tenant's defence and would thwart the proceedings, while also asserting that the issues in the case have been framed and trial has commenced.
6. The said amendment application has been rejected by the learned Tribunal, vide its order dated 23.7.2019, observing that it is a settled position of law that personal - bonafide necessity of a landlord is required to be seen on the date of filing of the application and not on the basis of subsequent developments.
7. Assailing the order passed by the learned Tribunal, Mr. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Tribunal below has seriously erred in rejecting petitioners' amendment application. According to him, the reasons given by the learned Tribunal are not germane to an amendment application.
8. While maintaining that the learned Tribunal or the Court is required to consider subsequent development also, at least in cases when the petition has been filed on the ground of bonafide necessity, he argued that until and unless the facts as sought to be incorporated by the petitioners are brought on record, even this question as to whether subsequent event is to be considered or not itself would not arise to be decided by the learned Tribunal.
9. Mr. Chitlangi, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned Tribunal cannot consider subsequent development and argued that the bonafide necessity of landlord is required to be reckoned on the date of institution of the suit. He tried to support the order by supplying other reasons/grounds : that Chandmal had passed away on 27.12.2013, whereas the amendment application came to be filed by the petitioners on 26.9.2018. He argued that the petitioners who are real nephews of late Sh. Chandmal cannot plead ignorance of his death and their delay cannot be condoned, particularly when, there is a series of litigation pending between both the parties. He argued that the delay in filing amendment application is fatal in the present case, particularly when, the issues had long been framed and the trial has commenced.
10. In rejoinder, Mr. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents cannot be considered inasmuch as the same were neither taken in the reply to the application filed by the respondents-landlord nor were such arguments advanced before the learned Tribunal while also pointing out that even the order of the Tribunal is not based on such grounds.
11. Heard.
12. Having regard to the facts obtaining in the present case, particularly as Chandmal the landlord had passed away on 27.12.2013, the petitioners being close relatives cannot plead ignorance of such fact and justify their inaction, particularly when his legal representatives have already come on record.
13. It is settled proposition of law that a person seeking amendment should proceed with due promptitude. The factum of death of Chandmal was unquestionably known to the petitioners, hence, it was required of them to have prayed for the amendment, which has been sought by way of application. The issues have already been framed in the petition and the trial has commenced, if the amendment sought by the petitioners is allowed at this juncture, it would lead to practically denovo trial of the suit.
14. The petitioners who themselves have been indolent towards their legal rights cannot get the impugned order set aside.
15. Petitioners' have been negligent, even in filing the present petition. The order was passed on 23.7.2019 fixing the next date to be 14.8.2019, yet the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition after more than four months, i.e., 30.11.2019.
16. It has been informed by Mr. Chitlangi that during the period interregnum, the evidence of the respondents is over and the suit has substantially progressed.
17. In view of the discussion aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that though the learned Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application on the reasons for which it has been dismissed; however, the order impugned does not call for interference. Petitioners' application was clearly barred by proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the petitioners failed to apply for incorporation of the desired amendment for five years, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners' amendment application did not merit acceptance.
18. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petitioners' application under Order VI Rule 17of the Code of Civil Procedure deserved to be dismissed.
19. The writ petition is, therefore dismissed. The impugned order dated 23.7.2019 is confirmed, however, for the reasons, as noticed above.
20. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
Comments