R (^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( Q No. 3 3 6 'B / 2007 PETITIONERS: DEFENDANTS ^v° ,^.^'^ ^v°^ v^ _^-' '\-\^..&- .,\ v-^^- '.V1"' . ^•'y 4»v \1-' ^^ •^y^ p^y^ '^v-'<LO?Cy---'- ^•••<Q!^\0.'' ^' - ^v«^. °v>^' .&?>--.-^^' ^- o" »y'' \'^ ^^) ^^ RESPONDENTS; ELAINTIFFS ^ .^ VERSUS l.)(a) Smt. Rahmat Bi, \ Aged about 60 years, \ Wd/o Late Gulam Kadar) (b) Kamruddin, Aged about 45 years, S/o Late Gulam Kadar, © Abdul Rehman, Aged about 40 years, S/o Late Gulam Kadar, (d) Subrati, Aged about 37 years, S/o Late Gulam Kadar, (e) Abdul Gani, Aged about 32 years, S/o Late Gulam Kadar, (f) Mohammad Ismail Aged about 30 years, S/o Late Gulam Kadar, (g) Mohammad Yunus, Aged about 28 years, S/o Late Gulam Kadar, 2. Noor Mohammad, Aged about 45 years, S/o Late Gulam Kadar, All R/o Shanichari Bazar Road, Infront of Bank of India, Bhoipara , Tehsil & District Durg, (C.G.) c^- 1. Harshveer Singh, Aged About 39 years, 2. Yashveer Singh, Aged about 35 years, 3. Jayveer Singh, Aged about 32 year, All S/o Late Dr. Mahaveer Gupta, & R/o Shivpara, Near Chandi vs s i'l ^>~ ^" Mandir, Tehsil & District Durg, (C.G.) WRnL PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^,..,.. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTKGARH AT BILASPUR Sinerie BCTich: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ ^tilion (C»No.5308 / 2007 PETITIONERS DEFENDANTS RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS Veraus tomruddin and others. Harshveer SiiK|h and others. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Somttant Verma, counsel fbr the petitioners. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal with Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for the rsspondents. WRIT PETmON UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTmn'IONCff ItSSA ORALORDER (25.02^818) tt is nrt in dispute that the suit for evictton fited by the resiromients was decreed by the trial Court, however during penctency of the first appeal, the petitioners/tenants applfcation under Order 8 Rule 17 was rejected on 14-< -2006 by whteh the p^itioners prayed for an amendment in the written statement to sutMnit that during the pendency of the appeat the plaintiff-tandlord has opened a shop in an attemative accomrmri^ion. It is ttiis order wrtiich is under chaltenge in this writ petition under Artkte 227 of the Constitution of India. (2) Though the first appellate Court has remanded the ca^ for tria! on some additional issues yet the questk>n before this Court is wrfiether while keeping seisine of the matter the appellate Court should have allowed the appBcatlon for amendment filed by the petitioners/tenants ? (3) It is argued by the leamed counse! for the petitioners that applteation is based on subsequ6nt event and the appeltate Court has ^ower to allow the prayer under Ordter 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. to amend ^^x.—;;^^^-.-;.1^'','"-;'"-,--••:—^.fKm'-,,T,-e-^SBS: ss^ s^^Ssi'k ••^ ^. '--L \'- the pleadii^s. He relies on 2002 (1) MPWN 76. On the otha- hand teamed counset )w the respondents opposes the contention raised by the pet'rtioners and submits that the amendment te malaSde and has been filed to deiay the proceedirgs. (4) In the appltoation for amendmert filed by the petitkmer (Annexure P/3) it is mentioned that the tenant has already stated in para 8(a) of the written statement that the landlord is in (X)ssession of attemative accoinmodation and now he wants to plead that he has qiened a shop from October, WK in the sa'id premises. (5) tt appears that the question of openii^ of shop may be a subsequent event but plea regardmg a^ilability of altemath/e accommodation was already available in the vmtten statement as para 8(a) therein, therefore, in view of the requirement of law under Sestion 12(1)(f) of the Chhattisgarh Accomnwdation Control Act, 1^1, this Court is urable to accept the contention of the petiti<wers that the amendments soi^ht for is based on subsequentevents. Avaitabflityof altemative accommodation and its actual users are two different things; Tlie petitioners having already pleaded the availability of altemative acaimmodation, now cannot be allowed to amend the written statement at this st^e in the firet appellate Court just to demonstrate that a shop has now been opened. (6) tn the cpioion of this Court the first appellate Court has nd committed any ill^ality or error of {Urisdtetton in rejecting the petitioners appitoation under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. c^^ " prashantKumarMishra Judge