(1) Dinesh Gehlot Vs. Dr. Jabbar Singh Kachchhawaha & Others IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2825/2008. (Dinesh Gehlot Vs. Dr. Jabbar Singh Kachchhawaha & Others) DATE OF ORDER : September 19, 2008 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas _______________________________ Mr. S.L. Sinwaria for the petitioner. Mr. S.D. Purohit, for the respondent. Reportable: BY THE COURT : In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of order dated 09.04.2008 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in the original application No.12/2005 filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001. Contention of the petitioner (respondent before the Tribunal) is that an application was filed by the respondent No.1 (herein) for eviction on the basis of bona fide necessity. In reply to the application filed by respondent No.1, submission was (2) Dinesh Gehlot Vs. Dr. Jabbar Singh Kachchhawaha & Others made by the petitioner that the applicant (respondent No.1 herein) himself has in possession a shop of 10' X 20' adjoining the shop in question. In the application filed under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 seeking amendment in the reply, it was prayed by the petitioner that after filing reply, out of the said shop which is situated in the same building, half of the portion has been let out to the Bank of Baroda for opening up ATM, therefore, this fact may be allowed to be incorporated in the reply. But, the application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subsequent event is necessary to rebut the ground of bona fide necessity, therefore, the Rent Tribunal was to allow the application filed by the petitioner under Section 21 for amendment in the reply to the application filed by respondent No.1. However, the Rent Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner observing that the petitioner has already stated in para 16 of the reply that applicant is having another vacant shop of 10' X 20' dimension and the gate of the said shop is opening towards the Nai Sarak, therefore, the matter is to be decided 240 days. Hence, amendment is rejected because the assertion (3) Dinesh Gehlot Vs. Dr. Jabbar Singh Kachchhawaha & Others of shop being already in existence to satisfy bona fide necessity is already there in the reply. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the reason assigned by the learned Rent Tribunal for rejection of the petitioner's application is totally unwarranted because the petitioner is entitled for incorporation of the subsequent event which is necessary for the adjudication of the application filed by respondent No.1 on the ground of bona fide necessity. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently argued that the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the fact that it is not permissible under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not apply in this case. It is further contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has already taken a ground with regard to existence of another shop being there in the same premises of measurement of 10' X 20', therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Act. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the intention of filing such application is to delay the proceedings only. I have considered the rival submissions. (4) Dinesh Gehlot Vs. Dr. Jabbar Singh Kachchhawaha & Others First of all, it is required to be observed that special Act is enacted for disputes with regard to landlord and tenant known as Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 and, therein, procedure for deciding the application is also provided. In that Act, although it is not specifically provided for amendment in the suit or reply, but, in my opinion, even though the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure may not be applicable, still the nature of the proceedings is not different than civil proceedings and adjudication is to be made on the basis of the pleadings. In this view of the matter, for the purpose of adjudication, even in the absence of express provision to that effect, in case incorporation of fact is necessary for deciding the matter the amendment can be allowed in the eviction proceedings before the Rent Tribunal but no party can claim the same as a matter of right. Therefore, the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent does not have substance; more so, the proposition of law referred to is well supported by the judgment of this Court in Pradeep Kumar Paliwal's case, reported in 2008 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 68. Now, with regard to order dated 09.04.2008 it can be said that the learned Judge, Rent Tribunal has not even perused the application filed by the petitioner for seeking amendment in the (5) Dinesh Gehlot Vs. Dr. Jabbar Singh Kachchhawaha & Others reply because in the application it is specifically stated by him that the plea of existence of another shop is taken in reply; but, subsequently, the applicant has let out half of the shop for the purpose of opening up ATM of the Bank of Baroda and this fact is required to be incorporated in the assertion which is necessary for the rebuttal of the plea of bona fide necessity. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application filed under Section 21 of the Act of 2001. For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 09.04.2008 is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to allow the petitioner's application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001. As per petitioner, the next date of hearing is tomorrow, therefore, it is necessary to file the amended reply tomorrow itself. The learned Rent Tribunal is further directed to expedite the matter. There shall however be no order as to costs. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.