1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5483/2010 Shafqat Ali Vs Civil Judge(SD), Rent Tribunal, Bundi & anr 10.12.2010 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr KK Sharma - for the petitioner Mr Deepak Pareek – for respondent No.2 BY THE COURT: This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.2.2010 by which application moved by the petitioner seeking amendment in the reply was dismissed. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier respondent landlord moved an application seeking amendment in the suit which was allowed. Similar application was moved by the petitioner at the stage when respondent landlord had taken godown on rent and was continuing therewith. The amendment to this effect has been denied by considering the facts on its merits though, while dealing with the application seeking amendment in the reply, the merit cannot be adjudicated. Whether taking premises on rent by the landlord amounts to foregoing his bona fide necessity is a question to be decided on completion of the proceedings but such an issue has been decided by the Rent 2 Tribunal on an application moved by the petitioner. Looking to the aforesaid, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for respondent landlord submits that as per provisions of section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act of 2001') amendment can be sought by the landlord if tenant acquires some property during the pendency of application for eviction. Accordingly, respondent had rightly sought amendment in the application for eviction but similar rights are not available to the petitioner tenant. In view of aforesaid and the fact that matter for eviction is pending before the Tribunal for last seven years, application was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. As such, this court may not interfere with the impugned order. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that earlier on two occasions respondent landlord sought amendment in the application for eviction and the last amendment was sought in the year 2009 itself. So far as amendment now sought by the petitioner is concerned, it is in regard to the property taken on rent by the respondent landlord. The question as to whether the claim made by the respondent landlord for eviction is made out or not is to 3 be decided in the proceedings and cannot be decided while hearing an application for amendment. If some event has taken place during pendency of the application for eviction and if it is material in nature then amendment can be sought by the parties. Looking to the aforesaid, I am not inclined to accept the view taken by the court below in passing the order dated 17.2.2010. The Act of o2001 does not provide for acceptance of application for amendment at the instance of landlord only. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 17.2.2010 passed by the respondent No.1 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment is allowed. Petitioner may file amended reply within ten days from today. Respondent landlord may file rejoinder thereto within another ten days. Parties would be free to lead evidence thereafter through affidavits, if they so desire, within fifteen days on completion of all the formalities as given above. The Rent Tribunal may then hear the matter finally at the earliest and decide it preferably within a period of three months from today. The parties are expected to co-operate with the Tribunal. (MN Bhandari), J. bnsharma