1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15429/2010 M/s Naraini Metals Industries Vs Rent Tribunal,Jaipur City & ors 22.11.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Raunak Singhvi - for the petitioner BY THE COURT: By this writ petition order dated 29.10.2010 has been challenged. Aforesaid order was passed on application moved by the petitioner for seeking amendment in the written statement in a case filed for eviction under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act of 200'). The application was dismissed by the court below so as the appeal. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that an application seeking amendment was filed much prior to evidence of parties and if it was not decided, petitioner cannot be blamed for that and it cannot be said to be an effort to delay the 2 proceedings. The amendment was sought looking to the event of offence committed by the land lord during pendency of application for eviction. Accordingly, it should have been allowed. Application for amendment was pressed when petitioner was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses in reference to the facts mentioned in the application seeking amendment. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances, application for amendment ought to have been allowed by the courts below. Hence, impugned order may be quashed and set aside. I have considered submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record of the case. Bare perusal of the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the Rent Tribunal shows that petitioner pressed the application seeking amendment at the stage when cross examination of witnesses was going on. The said application was made on 11.2.2010, however, subsequent to it, this court decided another matter between the same parties for decision on preliminary issues No. 5, 6 and 7 at the first instance and, that too, within time frame. After making the said application, 16 dates were given by the Tribunal in between, however, at no point of time, the application was pressed. 3 Leaving aforesaid and to look into merit, I had asked learned counsel for petitioner to how the amendment sought is relevant in a case of eviction under the provisions of the Act of 2001. This is more so when it is regarding an offence said to have been committed by the land lord and, for it, a separate FIR has been lodged. The learned counsel could not explain as to how the facts mentioned in the application seeking amendment are relevant to a case for eviction from premises under the Act of 2001. If petitioner has issues of relief against the land lord, he has been given liberty to pursue the matter for that purpose separately and, thereby, rights of petitioner have not been curtailed to seek remedy in regard to the event, if any, taken place but, definitely, it is not relevant to a case seeking eviction from rented premises. In view of aforesaid, I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order dated 29.10.2010 and, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. (MN BHANDARI), J. bnsharma