1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Hanuman Prasad Nai Vs. Kuldeep Sharma & Anr. (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.11692/2009) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Judgment: August 19, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.Amit Gupta, for the petitioner. Mr.O.P. Garg, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: Although this case is listed in the category of “orders”, but with the consent of both the parties, this case is being decided finally. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2009, passed by the learned Rent Tribunal Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amending the written statement. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for eviction on the ground of bona fide necessity and default. The petitioner filed written statement 2 and denied all the contents made in the eviction petition. On receipt of the show cause notice of the Tribunal, the petitioner deposited all the arrears of rent due within one month in the bank account of the respondent. But due to some bona fide mistake, the word “one month” was not mentioned in the written statement filed by him. Therefore, the defendant-petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amending the pleadings. The respondent did not file any reply to the said application. However, vide order dated 25.04.2009, the learned Tribunal dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Amit Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the only amendment the petitioner wanted to make in his written statement is to bring the facts on record that the notice allegedly sent by the landlord was never received by him. However, once he received the notice sent by the Tribunal, immediately within a period of one month, he had deposited the arrears of rent. According to the learned counsel, the requirement of law is that once the tenant receives a notice, he should deposit the arrears of rent within one month so as to get the benefit of the first default. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, it is imperative that this fact 3 be brought on record through an amendment. Hence, the learned Judge has committed an error in dismissing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. On the other hand, Mr. O.P. Garg, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, has contended that these facts were already mentioned in the written statement. Hence, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved by the petitioner with the oblique motive of prolonging the proceeding. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that in his written statement the word “one month” has not been included. Therefore, the petitioner was justified in requesting that the relevant facts be brought on record by moving the application Under 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment. Since the very defence of the petitioner would depend on the facts narrated by him in his pleadings, the learned Judge should have allowed the said application. Hence, this Court quashes and sets aside the order dated 25.04.2009 and permits the petitioner to amend his written statement as mentioned by him in the application. 4 The petitioner shall file the amended written statement within a period of two weeks from the date of this judgment before the learned Tribunal. With these observations, this petition is, hereby, allowed. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki