Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1943 (RAJ)

Shivkaran v. Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara

2008-08-18

H.R.PANWAR

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.05.2008 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondent No.1, Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara (for short "the Rent Tribunal" hereinafter). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order impugned. 3. The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that a petition under Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act of 2001) was filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner seeking eviction of the rented premises mentioned therein. The notice of the petition was served on the petitioner. The petitioner filed a reply, affidavit and document annexed therewith. Thereafter, the matter proceeded and ultimately, the matter reached to the stage of final argument. At this stage, the petitioner-tenant filed an application to take on record the affidavit on 08.05.2008. The affidavit sought to be taken on record was prepared on 17.05.2007 and no explanation was made as to why such affidavit which was available and was in the knowledge of the petitioner, has not been filed with the reply as required under Sec. 15 of the Act of 2001. By the order impugned, the learned Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioner. Hence this writ petition. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the interest of justice, the affidavit even at the stage of final argument and at appellate stage could be taken on record. Learned counsel has invited my attention towards the provisions of Section of 21 of the Act of 2001 which read as under:- "21. Procedure and powers of the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal.-(I) In every case before the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal the evidence of a witness shall be given by affidavit. However, the Rent Tribunal or the Appellate Rent Tribunal, where it appears to it that it is necessary in the interest of justice to call a witness for examination or cross-examination and such witness can be produced, may order attendance for examination or cross-examination of such a witness" 5. Learned counsel has also relied on a decision of this Court in Surendra Mehta v. Bapu Lal & Anr., 2008(2) WLN 15 =2008(2) RLW 1448 . The decision relied on by counsel for the petitioner turn on its own facts and, therefore, is of no help to the petitioner. Learned counsel has also relied on a decision of this Court in Surendra Mehta v. Bapu Lal & Anr., 2008(2) WLN 15 =2008(2) RLW 1448 . The decision relied on by counsel for the petitioner turn on its own facts and, therefore, is of no help to the petitioner. In that case, the landlord filed a rejoinder to the reply setting out a new case and that was the point in issue which was to be examined in that case. The Tribunal allowed to introduce the new pleas by way of rejoinder and that order was challenged in that case. The facts of the present case is totally different from the facts of the case in Surendra Mehta v. Bapu Lal & Anr. (supra), therefore, in my view, the decision relied on by the petitioner is of no help to the petitioner. Section 21 of the Act of 2001 clearly provides that where it appears to the Rent Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal that it is necessary in the interest of justice to call a witness for examination or cross-examination and such witness can be produced, may order attendance for examination or cross-examination of such a witness. This clearly shows that this provision is only to be exercised by the Rent Tribunal or Rent Appellate Tribunal when it is considered necessary in the interest of justice to call a witness to examine or cross-examine. The facts of the present case is altogether different and, therefore, provision of Section 21 of the Act do not rescue the petitioner. In the circumstances, therefore, the Rent Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner by order impugned. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, keeping in view the scope of interference under Article 227 as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadharta Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 1561 . The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******