Choru Lal vs Lrs Of Chandrakant And Ors

With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondents No.1 & 2 {to be referred as 'landlords'} filed an eviction application before Rent Tribunal, Bikaner against the petitioner {to be referred as 'tenant'}, for tenant's eviction from the disputed premises on the ground of bona find need and personal necessity. During pendency of the Eviction Application, the landlords filed two applications, one for bringing on record certain documents which are admittedly Government record/documents and the second application was for amendment in the Eviction Application. The Rent Tribunal vide order dated 15.02.2017 allowed the applications filed by landlords, hence present writ petition has been filed by the tenant.

Counsel for the tenant submitted that the facts of amendment sought by the landlords were already in the knowledge of the landlords. Counsel further submitted that in the first round of litigation, the landlords filed Eviction petition against the tenant on the same grounds, which was dismissed by the trial court. Counsel further submitted that on appeal filed on behalf of landlords, the Appellate Rent Tribunal gave liberty to the landlords for filing fresh suit whereas the landlords have filed application for amendment in the pending Eviction petition. Lastly, the counsel prayed for allowing the writ petition. In support his writ petition, the counsel relied on judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Aalok Khanna vs Rajdarshan Hotel Pvt. Ltd.: 2015 (3) CIVIL COURT CASES 712 (Raj) and LRs of late Smt Jannat Joje Chhipa vs Sridhar & others: 2013 (4) DNJ (Raj.) 1518.

Counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned Rent Tribunal rightly allowed the applications submitted by landlords. Counsel further submitted that by allowing amendment application by the learned Tribunal, no prejudice has been caused to the tenant as the tenant has right to file amended reply in rebuttal and liberty for the same was also granted by the learned Tribunal. Counsel further submitted that the documents, which have been filed on behalf of landlords are Government documents, as such, the learned Tribunal has committed no illegality in taking the same on record. Lastly, the counsel prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. In support of his contentions, the counsel relied on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Gupta and Sons vs. Damodar Valley Corporation: AIR 1967 SC 96.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

The writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons, firstly that no prejudice has been caused to the tenant by allowing the application for amendment by the learned Tribunal as the tenant has right to file amended reply to the amended Eviction petition. Secondly, the documents which are taken on record by the learned Tribunal, are Government related record and as such, the tenant can also file documents in rebuttal in support of his case. Thirdly, the dispute between the parties relates to eviction of the tenant from the disputed premises on the ground of bona fide necessity and personal need and more particularly, the tenant has been residing in the rented property since year 1953.

Therefore, in my considered view, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in allowing the applications filed by landlords. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to exercise jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution in the present matter. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.