DBSAW NO.1357/08. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1357/2008. In S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4423/2004. Kanhiya Lal Vs. The Presiding Officer, Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Anr. Date of order:- December 10, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Giriraj Bardhar for the appellant. Shri Sudesh Bansal for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Mohammad Rafiq J.):- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) This appeal has been preferred by the tenant-appellant whose writ petition was filed against the order of the appellate court i.e. learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 17/5/2004 whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC seeking amendment in the written- statement was rejected. 3) Shri Giriraj Bardhar, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellate court was not justified in rejecting the application for DBSAW NO.1357/08. 2 amendment by which petitioner wanted to incorporate the facts with regard to subsequent acquisition of premises i.e. C-232, Dayanand Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur by the landlord-respondent. It was submitted that learned appellate court has wrongly rejected the application on the ground of alleged delay whereas in fact, there was no such delay. The appellant filed application immediately after he came to know about acquisition of the aforesaid property by the respondent-landlord. Learned Single Judge also erred in law in not appreciating this aspect of the matter. Learned counsel referred to Section 14 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, “Act of 1950”) and argued that in order to have the case examined from the point of view of comparative hardship, the amendment sought for was very necessary because trial court and for that matter, appellate court was required to record the positive finding on the aspect whether by directing eviction, the tenant would not suffer more hardship than the hardship faced by the landlord if such eviction was not directed. Learned counsel submitted that law is well settled that the subsequent evidence can be allowed to be incorporated by amendment in the written-statement. Here in the present case, immediately after the appellant came to know about subsequent development, he filed application. Impugned-order passed by the learned trial court as also by the learned Single Judge be therefore set- aside. 4) Shri Sudesh Bansal, learned counsel for the DBSAW NO.1357/08. 3 respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that only allegation on which the amendment has been prayed for by the appellant-tenant is that respondent got a firm registered by the name of M/s.S.R. Agencies. While firm was got registered on 22/7/2000, judgment & decree was passed by the trial court on 6/5/2002. The suit was pending for the evidence of the appellant- tenant who was defendant therein till 24/4/2002. The appellant did not make any application for such amendment during pendency of the suit and now at the appellate stage, he has filed this application only with a view to delaying the proceedings and protract his continuation in the premises. Learned counsel argued that law is well settled that the landlord is master of his choice. If there is more than one premise in his possession, he has to decide which of the two he should request for being vacated for his bonafide personal necessity. 5) We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. 6) The facts which are not denied even by the appellant-tenant are that M/s.S.R. Agencies was registered on 22/7/2000 and the suit has remained pending for recording evidence of the appellant-tenant till 24/4/2002 and judgment & decree passed by the trial court dated 6/5/2002. It was only during pendency of the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur that the present appellant filed application seeking amendment of the written-statement on 19/8/2003. It is thus DBSAW NO.1357/08. 4 clear that there was a delay of more than two years from the date aforesaid firm was got registered. It is also not clear whether actually the respondent has come into possession of any such premises as alleged because landlord-respondent is contesting such plea of the appellant-tenant and submit that no such premises has till now become available to him. Otherwise also, even if it is presumed that there is more than one premise available with the respondent, the law is well settled that landlord is master of his choice and he has to choose which of the two he should request for being vacated for his bonafide personal necessity. 7) On both the counts, we do not find any infirmity either in the findings of the learned trial court or that of the learned Single Judge so as to make any interference therewith. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (NARAYAN ROY), CJ. anil