Suresh Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Rishikesh Gupta Vs Hariram Agarwal S/O Late Shri Poonam Chandji

[2025:RJ-JP:49162]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16410/2024

Suresh Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Rishikesh Gupta, Mayurfency Store, Shop No.4, Oswalimohalla, Madanganjkishangarh, Distt. Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Hariram Agarwal S/o Late Shri Poonam Chandji, R/o Oswalimohalla, Madanganjkishangarh, Distt. Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anita Aggarwal with Mr. Laxmi Kant For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshad Kapoor

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

¶11

Order

¶12

03/12/2025

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 25.09.2024, whereby the application of the petitionerdefendant in the suit for possession for amendment in the reply has been rejected.

¶14

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that amendment, which has been sought by the petitioner could not have been incorporated in the original reply as the pleadings, which are being sought to be incorporated are based on the post conduct of the respondent-landlord, whereby he had issued a notice dated 28.12.2021, demanding the arrears of rent from the petitioner from 01.10.2010 upto 31.12.2021. In the notice, the landlord has also disclosed his bank account and have demanded

[2025:RJ-JP:49162]

[CW-16410/2024]

(2 of 4)

the petitioner-tenant to deposit the rent within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

¶19

It is contended by the petitioner that in pursuance of the notice dated 28.12.2021, the arrears of rent has been deposited by the petitioner in the bank account of the respondent-landlord. Since, the notice sent by the respondent-landlord dated 28.12.2021 has been complied with, therefore, in the pending suit, the petitioner sought amendment to bring the said facts on record by incorporating the same, after priliminary objections in the reply as Para-8:-

¶20

“fcUnw la[;k 08 %& oknh }kjk izfroknh dks okn yfEcr jgrs gq;s fnukad 28-11-2021 dks izfroknh dks iqu% fdjk;snkj ekurs gq;s vius fof/kd izko/kkuksa v/khu okn vk/kkfjr uksfVl esa tks vnRr vof/k ds fdj;s O;frØe ds vk/kkj ij okn dkj.k cukdj csn[kyh vkf/kiR; dk vuqrks’k pkgk gSA oknh }kjk mDr uksfVl esa of.kZr vof/k lfgr okn yEcu ,oa vfxze vof/k dk fdjk;k Lo;a ds cSad [kkrs esa izkIr dj fy;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa lEifr vUrj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 112 ds v/khu mjksDr vk/kkj ij fu’dklu ds vuqrks’k dks fuLlkj dj pqdk gS ,oa oknh dk okn dkj.k Lo;a mijksDr okn ds vfHkokd vuqlkj fuLlkj gks pqdk gSA ;g rF; fof/k ls lqLFkkfir gS fd fdlh Hkh dk;Zokgh ds v/khu okn dkj.k okn laLFku ls vfUre fuLrkj.k rd lrr~ jguk pkfg;sA bl ifjizs{; esa izLrqr okn fuLlkj gks pqdk gSA ”

¶21

It is further contended by the petitioner that the learned trial Court has rejected the application merely on the count of the fact that it will change the nature of the suit and the amendments are not bonafide and have been filed by delay.

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that his present suit was disposed of on account of enforcement of the Rent Control Act, 2001 in the area, where the premises is situated and the suit under Section 106 of Transfer of

[2025:RJ-JP:49162]

[CW-16410/2024]

(3 of 4)

property Act would not continue, which was subsequently revived after the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court that such pending suits will continue. In those circumstances, he had issued notice dated 28.12.2021. He further submits that this notice was issued by him for the reason to entitle him at least to file the suit for eviction under the New Rent Control Act, 2001. Learned counsel further submits that issuance of the notice by him, will not have any effect on his pending suit but he could not controvert the fact that the amendment, which has been sought by the petitioner is based on subsequent notice send by the plaintiff and the deposit of rent by the defendant-petitioner in the account of plaintiff.

¶27

Heard both the parties. 7. This Court finds that the suit, which was pending before the Civil Court for eviction was based on the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. During disposal and revival of the suit, a notice was issued by respondent dated 28.12.2021, claiming the rent for the period for 01.10.2010 upto 31.12.2021 and disclosing the account number and demanding the petitioner to deposit it within the period of 30 days is a subsequent event, which could not have been incorporated by the petitioner at the time of filing of his original written statement. Amendment which has been sought, will no manner change the nature of the suit, as the suit will remain of eviction. What would be the effect of payment of rent by the petitioner in pursuance of the notice dated 28.12.2021 has to be decided by the trial Court after the amendment is permitted.

¶28

In view of above, order dated 25.09.2024 is quashed and set aside. The application for amendment of the petitioner is allowed.

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:49162]

[CW-16410/2024]

The petitioner is permitted to amend his written statement as prayed by petitioner in his application for amendment.

¶33

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶35

(BIPIN GUPTA),J

¶36

DIVYA /35

Suresh Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Rishikesh Gupta v. Hariram Agarwal S/O Late Shri Poonam Chandji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Rishikesh Gupta v. Hariram Agarwal S/O Late Shri Poonam Chandji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faizan @ Ajharuddin S/O Shri Badruddin Vs Mehboob Ali S/O Shri Mehmood Ali

Mahendra Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Dwarika Prasad Vs Ramdayal Gupta S/O Shri Jamna Lal Gupta

Ashutosh Vashistha S/O Shri Tej Kumar Viashistha Vs Tej Kumar Vashistha S/O Late Shri Jagannath Vashistha

Premchand Manshani S/O Gulab Rai Vs Smt. Savitri Devi Sharma W/O Late Hemant Sharma

Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf Vs Rakesh Manju S/O Sh. Girdhari Lal

M/S Karmabhoomi Vidhyapith Sansthan Vs Asia Pacific Society for Training and Development