Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1282 (RAJ)

Mahendra Kumar v. Appellate Rent Tribunal

2008-05-08

H.R.PANWAR

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - Respondent No. 1, being the Rent Appellate Tribunal, service on it is dispensed with. 2. By the instant writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant seeks to declare the order Annex. 11 dated 11.02.2008 passed by the respondent No. 1 as illegal and to set aside the same. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order impugned. 4. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the respondent No.2, the landlord, filed a petition under Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, "the Act, 2001" hereinafter) seeking order of eviction against, the petitioner-tenant. By the order dated 12.01.2007 (Annx.8) the Rent Tribunal ordered for eviction of the petitioner from the disputed premises, against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.1. However, after filing the appeal, after lapse of the period of one year, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 22 of the Act, 2001 seeking to summon certain witnesses. For summoning of the very witnesses, the petitioner had sought before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the application of summoning the witnesses and the witnesses were summoned by the Tribunal on various occasions, however, on account of certain changes in their designation and names, the witnesses could not be served and, therefore, did not appear and ultimately the notice on such witnesses were given "Dasti" to the petitioner with a direction to produce the witnesses at his own, whom the petitioner ultimately failed to produce before the Rent Tribunal. On 16.09.2006, the counsel representing the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal, closed the evidence of the petitioner and the matter was posted for final arguments. Thereafter the Rent Tribunal finally heard the arguments and decided the matter vide order Annx.8. 5. The application filed by the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal was allowed summoning the witnesses and despite several opportunities, the petitioner failed to produce the witnesses and get their evidence to be recorded. On an appeal against the order of the Rent Tribunal, which remained pending for an year, thereafter a similar application was filed by the petitioner seeking summoning of same witnesses, summoning of which was allowed by the Tribunal. On an appeal against the order of the Rent Tribunal, which remained pending for an year, thereafter a similar application was filed by the petitioner seeking summoning of same witnesses, summoning of which was allowed by the Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, respondent No.1, by an elaborate order impugned, declined to summon the very those witnesses at the appellate stage, which had already been summoned by the Rent Tribunal but the petitioner failed to produce them. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in order to arrive at a just decision and in the interest of justice, the Appellate Court ought to have summoned the witnesses and recorded their evidence at the appeal stage. 7. It appears from the orders of the Rent Tribunal as also the Appellate Tribunal that opportunities were granted to the petitioner and it is the petitioner who could not produce the witnesses and ultimately, on failure to produce witnesses, the petitioner, at his own, closed the evidence. Now at the appellate stage, he seeks to take the matter back to the stage of trial by seeking summoning of such witnesses and, therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in declining to summon the witnesses at the appellate stage. 8. In this view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. 9. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******