M/S.Santosh Paper Mart v. Sri Guru Pershad Sanghi

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3476 of 2015 ORDER :

This civil revision petition is filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, by the tenant, aggrieved by the order, dated 19.06.2015, passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.170 of 2015 in R.A.No.48 of 2012 Eviction is ordered in R.C.No.187 of 2005 filed by the respondent herein on the ground of bonafide requirement. Against the said order of eviction, appeal is filed in R.A.No.48 of 2012. When it is coming up for arguments, the present application in I.A.No.170 of 2015 is filed under Order 6, Rule 17 r/w.Sec. 151 of CPC, by the tenant, seeking amendment of counter, by incorporating a plea that the respondent had already got evicted another tenant from the adjoining premises, as such, the cause of bonafide requirement will not survive. Such application is dismissed by the appellate Tribunal by impugned order, dated 19.06.2015. As against the same, this civil revision petition is filed.

In this revision, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that in view of the ground on which eviction is ordered, the petitioner is entitled to seek amendment of counter. It is further stated that as the vacation of another mulgi pursuant to orders passed in R.C.No.187 of 2005 is a subsequent event, he is entitled to seek amendment as prayed for in I.A.No.170 of 2015. From a perusal of the impugned order itself, it is clear that no date is mentioned in the affidavit as to when the respondent got evicted another tenant pursuant to orders passed in R.C.No.187 of 2005. In any event, it is also clear from the impugned order that

having come to know about the same in the year 2004, petitioner has not taken any steps for amendment of prayer in the appeal, and it is only when the matter is coming up for arguments, the present application is filed. In view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, the petitioner has not withstood the test of due diligence. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th October 2015 ajr