1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3957/2010. Ummed Ali. vs. Shankar Lal and another. Date : 28.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.LK Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr.RK Thanvi, for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondents-tenants submitted an application under Sections 23 and 24 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the Rent Tribunal with the allegation that their rented premises suffered heavy fire and due to fire have been damaged substantially. The respondents prayed that they may be permitted to repair the premises at the expenses of the petitioner-landlord. That application was allowed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 14.10.2009 and the respondents were permitted to do the repair work to the extent of Rs.67,000/- which is to be adjusted in future rent. The petitioner-landlord preferred appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Balotra against the order dated 14.10.2009. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner submitted an application before the Rent Appellate Tribunal seeking permission to amend the original reply 2 filed before the Rent Tribunal to take a ground that since the premises has completely been destroyed on 1.1.2010 due to fire, therefore, now there cannot arise any question of repairing of the shop and the respondents cannot rebuilt the premises in the garb of repairing. The petitioner's said application was rejected by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Balotra vide order dated 7.4.2010. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred. The petitioner first moved an application before the Rent Appellate Tribunal for appointment of Commissioner for local inspection and then moved another application seeking incorporation of additional grounds in the appeal which were rejected by two separate orders dated 28.1.2010 and 12.1.2010 respectively. It appears that against the above orders, the petitioner preferred SBCWP No.1110/2010 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.2.2010. The petitioner then moved application before the Appellate Tribunal that since the entire premises has extinguished because of some fire occurred on 1.1.2010 and, therefore, this fact may be taken on record and for that purpose, since on earlier round, the plea was not permitted being plea of fact and, therefore, it became necessary for the petitioner to seek amendment to take the plea in the original pleading. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the court below committed serious error of law in observing that subsequent event is not admitted fact and, therefore, the amendment cannot be allowed. Secondly, the plea of complete demolition of the premises is based on subsequent event, therefore, the tenant, even if had right to repair the premises, but now that is not available and the tenant has no right to rebuilt the premises. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner already took the same plea in the original pleading that the premises has demolished in such a way that it cannot be repaired and used for any purpose and, therefore, subsequent event has no relevance. In view of this the plea of the petitioner that the premises has been extinguished has been considered by the rent tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a judgment delivered by this Court in the case of M/s. Kistur Chand Jawari Lal vs. Mangi Lal reported in 1990(2) RLR 534. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. It is not in dispute that the petitioner took 4 the plea that the premises in question totally destroyed and, therefore, the respondents have no right to rebuilt or repair the premises. The petitioner's case is not that by virtue of subsequent event, if it took place, then also the tenancy has come to an end under any provision of the Rent Control Act, 2001 and further, no decree for eviction yet has been passed against the tenants on the ground of extinguishment of the tenancy. The tenant who continued as tenant till it is determined or can come to an end by law, shall have right to enjoy the tenancy rights and for that purpose, if he can prove the case as set up, then the Court can grant the relief of enjoyment of premises. The tenant's rights as well as how tenancy can come to an end are well defined under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. In view of the above reasons that originally, the plea is already in the petition itself of extinguishment of the premises and the subsequent event in the peculiar facts of the case is not very much relevant for the purpose of deciding any of the issue, therefore, if the court has rejected the plea of the petitioner, then it has not committed any error of law. However, it may be observed that for any plea of one party, it is never necessary that it can be permitted only when the other party admits the fact and, therefore, observation of the trial 5 court that the fact is not admitted by the other party is of no relevance. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any merits in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya