Kishan Lal And Ors. @APPELLANT@Hash Kailash Chand Agrawal & Ors.

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitionerstenants against the order dated 01.02.2018 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur

Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the application submitted by the petitioners-tenants under Order 6 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment in

the memo of appeal was rejected.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-landlords filed an eviction application against the petitioners-tenants for their eviction from the shop

in dispute before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur. The learned Rent Tribunal, passed decree of eviction against the petitioners-tenants on the ground of bona-

fide need and personal necessity vide judgment and decree dated 13.02.2017.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2017, the petitioners-tenants filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur

Metropolitan, Jaipur. During pendency of the appeal the petitioners-tenants have filed an application for amendment in the memo of appeal for adding

the facts and ground that during pendency of the eviction application before the Rent Tribunal, the original applicant no.3 (Jai Kishan Agarwal) expired

on 13.03.2013. The petitioners-tenants mentioned in the application that they wants to add this fact in their appeal that there is one daughter of late Jai

Kishan Agarwal and she has not been brought on record by the landlord and further wants to add that what would be the effect of death of applicant

no.3 Jai Kishan Agarwal. The application seeking amendment in the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal vide order dated

01.02.2018. Hence the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-tenants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Counsel for the petitioners-tenants submitted that the petitioners-tenants want to add facts and grounds in the appeal regarding the death of Mr. Jai

Kishan Agarwal and further wants to add that the daugther of late Mr. Jai Kishan Agarwal namely Muskan has not been brought on record by the

respondents-landlords. Counsel further submits that the said application has been wrongly dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal because by adding

this facts and ground in the appeal no prejudice would be caused to the respondents-landlords.

Counsel for the respondents submitted that the originally eviction application was filed by the three applicants and by death of one applicant no

effect would be their in the eviction application. Counsel further submits that applicant no.3 Jai Kishan Agarwal expired in the year 2013 during

pendency of the eviction application before the Rent Tribunal and the amendment application has been filed by the respondents-tenants after a great

delay at the Appellate Stage. Counsel further submits that the said application was not maintainble and the same has rightly been dismissed by the

Appellate Rent Tribunal.

Counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Phool Chand vs. The Appellate

Rent Tribunal and Ors., reported in (2008) AIR (Raj) 156, wherein it has been held as under:-

“15. The contention of the petitioner that under Order 6 Rule 17, at any stage, amendment can be allowed cannot be accepted in view of the

amended CPC in which a proviso is added to Order 6 Rule 17 which clearly provides that amendment can be allowed at the stage of trial only,

therefore, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC so also in view of the

judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pratap Rai Tanwani and Anr. (supra), wherein, it has been categorically held that the crucial date is the date of

petition. Therefore, learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has also rightly refused to entertain the application under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act,

2001.

While following the law laid down by Apex Court in case of Pratap Rai Tanwani reported in (2005) 8 SCC 490, I am of the opinion that no

interference is required in the order dt. 01.09.2007 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal in rejecting the application of the petitioner filed

under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001.â€​

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners regarding wrongful dismissal of the amendment application submitted by the petitioners-

tenants before the Appellate Rent Tribunal is not acceptable for the reasons; firstly, the applicant no.3 Jai Kishan Agarwal died during pendncy of the

eviction application and no steps were taken for amendment by the petitioners-tenants at that stage; secondly, the eviction application was filed on

behalf of three applicants and two applicants are still surviving, therefore, the surviving applicants can pursue their rights; thirdly, the Appellate Rent

Tribunal rightly dismissed the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment in the appeal in view of the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in the matter of Phool Chand (supra).

However, the petitioners-tenants are at liberty to raise all the legal grounds available to them at the time of final hearing of the appeal.

In that view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioners-tenants stands dismissed.