Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ghayan Chand Jain Son Of Choth Mal Jain vs Subash Chand Jain Son Of Gulab Chand Jain on 28 January, 2020
Author: Prakash Gupta
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12305/2019
Ghayan Chand Jain Son Of Choth Mal Jain, By Caste Jain
Resident Of Plot No. 2, Fool Colony, Meeya Bajaj Wali Ghali, Tok
Raod, Sangner, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
Subash Chand Jain Son Of Gulab Chand Jain, By Caste Jain
Resident Of 7/25, Ajmera House, Jain Mohalla, Jain Minder Road
Sangner, Jaipur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Kumawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Order
28/01/2020
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-non applicant (hereinafter referred to as 'the non applicant') against the order dated 23.4.2019 passed by the Rent Tribunal in Original Application No. 566/2017, whereby the application filed by the non applicant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed.
Facts of the case are that the original applicant filed an original application before the Rent Tribunal. The non applicant filed the reply. During the pendency of the Original Application, the non applicant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC readwith Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001'). The original applicant filed a reply to the said application. The Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 23.4.2019 dismissed the non applicant's (Downloaded on 16/02/2020 at 11:52:55 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-12305/2019] application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC readwith Section 21 of the Act of 2001. Hence, this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the non applicant submits that photographs of two tenanted shops were taken on record and he sought to amend his written statement in that regard. However, the learned Rent Tribunal without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, dismissed the application. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set-aside.
Heard. Considered.
The Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 23.4.2019 while dismissing the defendant's application observed that the pleading in regard to amendment sought to be made, had already been made by the non applicant in his reply.
I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal in its order dated 23.4.2019.
For the aforesaid reasons, there is no reason for this court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, all pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J Dk/11 (Downloaded on 16/02/2020 at 11:52:55 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)