Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1907 (RAJ)

Fakhruddin v. Rent Tribunal, Ajmer

2010-11-12

M.N.BHANDARI

body2010
Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.10.2010, this writ petition has been filed. The order aforesaid was passed on an application moved by the petitioner invoking the provisions of Order 14 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short `the CPC') read with Sections 18 and 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short `the Act of 2001'). 2. The petitioner came up with the case that he is a tenant in property bearing No. 88/16 situated at Purani Mandi, Ajmer. The landlord filed an application for eviction without impleading him as party respondent and thereby obtained an order of eviction against a person who is not even a tenant. Petitioner could know about the order of the Rent Tribunal when it came for execution. The petitioner made an application for setting aside the order of eviction and possession. The Rent Tribunal admitted the application for its consideration and even passed a conditional interim order against eviction from the premises in dispute provided petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 1,200/- per month as a rent, which he is regularly depositing. The grievance of the petitioner is that though his application was taken for consideration, however, for its decision, issues have not been framed. The petitioner accordingly made an application for framing of issues for its decision so that parties may lead their evidence accordingly. This is on the pretext that the provisions of CPC are entirely applicable to the matters covered by the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 2001. The Rent Tribunal dismissed the application holding that matter would be decided based on the material available on record. This is more so when the parties lead their evidence at the initial stage itself. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that without framing issues, proper adjudication of his application would not be possible. A specific reference of Section 18 of the Act of 2001 has been given to show that procedure of the Rent Tribunal has to be as per substantive law applicable to the matters and in the present matter, provisions of the CPC apply. The provisions of the CPC provide for framing of the issues. A specific reference of Section 18 of the Act of 2001 has been given to show that procedure of the Rent Tribunal has to be as per substantive law applicable to the matters and in the present matter, provisions of the CPC apply. The provisions of the CPC provide for framing of the issues. Reference of the judgment of this Court in the case of Central Academy Educational Society vs. M/s. The Pratap Commercial Company Private Limited reported in 2010 (2) RJT 890 so also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Makhan Lal Bangal vs. Manas Bhunia reported in AIR 2001 SC 490 has been given. 3. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for petitioner. 4. It is a case where matter is pending consideration before the Rent Tribunal on the application moved by petitioner against the order of eviction. Though application has already been taken into consideration, but for its adjudication issues have not been framed. Thus, the only grievance is regarding non-framing of the issues for adjudication of the application. For that purpose, reference of Section 18 of the Act of 2001 has been given. 5. Perusal of Section 18 of the Act of 2001 shows that provisions are regarding jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal. Section 18 of the Act of 2001 prohibits jurisdiction of Civil Courts to the matters, which are given in exclusively jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal. The proviso to it provides that matter not covered by Chapter II & III, Rent Tribunal shall give due regard to the provisions of Transfer of Properties Act, Indian Contract Act or any other substantive law applicable to such matter in the same manner in which such law would have been applied had the dispute been brought before a Civil Court by way of suit. Section 18 of the Act of 2001 speaks about the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal and not the procedure to be applied by the Rent Tribunal. To clarify the aforesaid, if any substantive right is coming out from the law like Indian Contract Act, it can be looked into and determined by the Rent Tribunal to the matters not covered by Chapters II & III, but aforesaid does not relate to the procedural law. To clarify the aforesaid, if any substantive right is coming out from the law like Indian Contract Act, it can be looked into and determined by the Rent Tribunal to the matters not covered by Chapters II & III, but aforesaid does not relate to the procedural law. Section 21 of the Act of 2001 provides for procedure and power of the Rent Tribunal and therein it has been provided that the Rent Tribunal would be having powers to regulate its own procedure apart from application of certain provisions of the CPC. Learned counsel for petitioner has mixed up two provisions while pressing his application, which are independent to each other. Procedure of Rent Tribunal is governed by Section 21 of the Act of 2001. 6. Now, comes the issue as to whether framing of issue is mandatory. Perusal of Section 21 of the Act of 2001 shows that the Rent Tribunal is having powers to regulate its own procedure. Aforesaid provision was made keeping in mind the objects of the Act of 2001. Looking to the large pendency of the rent control cases, summary procedure is provided for speedy disposal of cases. If aforesaid object apart from the provisions of the Act of 2001 are looked into, then it is clearly coming out that CPC has not been made applicable entirely. If the prayer made by the petitioner is accepted to make provisions of the CPC applicable to rent control cases, by making it as a rule, it would amount to frustrate the very object of enactment of the Act of 2001. Hence, for the aforesaid reason also, prayer made cannot be accepted. This is more so when the Rent Tribunal will decide the controversy raised by the petitioner after taking up every aspect of the matter into consideration. 7. I have even considered the judgments referred by learned counsel for petitioner. In the case of Central Academy Educational Society (supra), it has been held that the Rent Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down in CPC and it is also not mandatory to frame issue. However, in the facts of that case, order was set aside therein. Paras 17 of the judgment is quoted thus:- "17. In the case of Central Academy Educational Society (supra), it has been held that the Rent Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down in CPC and it is also not mandatory to frame issue. However, in the facts of that case, order was set aside therein. Paras 17 of the judgment is quoted thus:- "17. It is true that the provisions of the Act does not mandate framing the issues or points of determination but then, if after due consideration of the matter the Tribunal arrives at the conclusion that for a right decision of the matter, so as to impart justice between the parties, it is necessary to spell out the points of determination specifically and unambiguously then it is not precluded from framing of issues/points of determination and while taking such exercise, the Tribunal can always apply the procedure and principles underlying Order XIV of the CPC. However, necessity of framing the issues has to be determined by the Court taking into account the pleadings of the parties in each case. Thus, is considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal could not have rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for framing the issues by simply saying that it will not be appropriate to frame the issues in light of the Rules. Needless to say that any application preferred by the parties to the proceedings has to be dealt with by the Tribunal in a just reasonable manner and the same should not be rejected in a cursory manner without touching the question raised, by a non-speaking order." 8. The matter in hand in arising out of an application for setting aside the order of eviction and possession. The Tribunal has given reasons to dismiss the application denying framing of issues. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Makhan Lal Bangal (supra) is concerned, the procedure applicable in election petition is altogether different, then the procedure provided under the Act of 2001. Since provisions of law applicable in this matter are quite different than in the judgment aforesaid, the case of Makhan Lal Bangal (supra) has no application to this case. 9. In the light of aforesaid discussions, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Rent Tribunal and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Since provisions of law applicable in this matter are quite different than in the judgment aforesaid, the case of Makhan Lal Bangal (supra) has no application to this case. 9. In the light of aforesaid discussions, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Rent Tribunal and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Dismissal of the writ petition would not mean that the Rent Tribunal will not decide all the controversies raised by the petitioner, rather it is observed that even if issues are not framed, the Rent Tribunal will consider and decide every aspect of the matter, which has been raised by the petitioner in his application. This should be after proper marshaling of the material therein.