Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2046 (RAJ)

Aruna v. Meena Charan

2010-12-09

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.—By way of this writ petition, the petitioner-tenant seeks to question the order dated 05.07.2010 (Annex.7) passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in Original Petition No. 237/2009 insofar the Tribunal has declined her prayer for summoning of certain documents from the plaintiff-landlady and for summoning of certain persons, said to be relevant for determination of the questions involved in the matter. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts and background aspects of the matter are that the respondent No.1 herein has filed a petition against the petitioner-tenant seeking eviction per cls. (a) and (i) of Sec.9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001') on the grounds of default in payment of rent by the tenant and reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlady. The petitioner has filed a reply refuting the allegations and contesting the grounds of eviction. The landlady has also filed a rejoinder. 3. The petitioner moved an application (Annex.4) before the Tribunal with reference to Section 21 of the Act of 2001 read with Order XI Rules 12 & 14 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking production of certain documents from the landlady with the submissions that the cheques allegedly dishonoured, the rent note, the lease agreement, the appointment letters of the landlady and her husband, their work permit and Green Card for USA, the family settlement deed, and the title documents in relation to other properties, all were the necessary documents for just and proper determination of the questions involved in the matter. The petitioner prayed for directions thus: ^^vr% izkFkZuk i= is'k dj fuosnu gs fd pSd la[;k 647861 fnukad 10-02-2009 pSd la[;k 647894 fnukad 10-03-2009 pSd la[;k 647895 fnukad 10-04-2009 pSd la[;k 647896 fnukad 10-05-2009 pSd la[;k 647897 fnukad 10-06-2009 rFkk fnukad 01-05-2007 ls fnukad 31-3-2008 rd dk yht ,xzhesUV o fdjk;kukek o"kZ 2006 o Jh eksgu flag ,oe~ Jhefr ehuk pkj.k ds MkDVj dh ukSdjh dk vuqca/k fu;qfä i= o iSr`d lEifÙk esM+rh xsV tks/kiqj ds ikfjokfjd caVokM+k] Jhefr ehuk pkj.k ,oe~ Jh eksgu flag ds xzhu dkMZ ,oe~ odZ ijehV dh izfr ,oa Jh eksgu flag ,oe~ ehuk pkj.k ds uke vej uxj ,oe~ ';ke uxj tks/kiqj dh lEifÙk ds nLrkostkr ryc Qjekus ds vkns'k ikfjr djkosaA** 4. The petitioner moved another application (Annex.5) with reference to Section 21 of the Act of 2001 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for summoning the landlady and her husband with the submissions that they were the relevant persons for the questions involved in the matter including the allegations of reasonable and bona fide requirement but both of them have not filed any affidavit in evidence. The petitioner prayed in this application that,- ^^vr% izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd ;kph Jhefr ehuk pkj.k ,oeZmuds ifr eksgu flag pkj.k dks okLrs lkN; ds izxVhdj.k gsrq ,oe~ 'kiFk ij mudh ijh{kk fd, tkus gsrq leu djkosa ,oe~ 'kiFk i= ij ftjg fd, tkus dh vuqefr vizkFkhZ dk iznku djkosaA vU; dksbZ vkns'k cgd vizkFkhZ tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s ikfjr QjekosaA** 5. The petitioner filed yet another application (Annex.6) with the prayer that she may be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses who have filed the affidavits in support of the petition for eviction. 6. The Rent Tribunal proceeded to deal with and decide all the three applications aforesaid by the common order dated 05.07.2010 (Annex.7). So far as the application Annexure-6 is concerned, the learned Tribunal allowed the same after finding it just and proper that the present petitioner be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of the opposite party. However, so far as the other two applications (Annex.4 & Annex.5) are concerned, the learned Tribunal rejected the same. 7. In relation to the prayer as made in the application Annexure-5 for summoning of the witnesses, the Tribunal observed that the landlady and her husband have not filed any affidavit in evidence and there was no justification to summon them. The Tribunal further observed that the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement was to be established by the landlady and if she has not filed her affidavit, the effect thereof would only be considered at the time of final decision of the petition. 8. In relation to the application Annexure-4, the Tribunal found the prayer concerning the documents entirely unjustified with the observations, inter alia, to the effect that the landlady was to establish her reasonable and bona fide requirement and the petitioner was not entitled to seek summoning of the documents relating to the service of the husband of the landlady or the family settlement. The Tribunal also pointed out that the petitioner had not stated any particulars about the land or house at Amar Nagar and Shyam Nagar. 9. In regard to the rent note and lease agreement, the Tribunal observed that the rent note had been referred by the landlady as Exhibit 2 and thus, directed that the original thereof be produced at the time of evidence. 10. So far the cheques referred by the petitioner are concerned, the Tribunal observed that the landlady had already served notice in regard to such cheques on the petitioner-tenant; that the factum of payment of rent was to be proved by the petitioner-tenant; and that such facts could be established by the tenant by producing her bank statement. Hence, the Tribunal found no justification to direct the landlady to produce the cheques. 11. Assailing the order so passed by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that rejection of the applications moved by the petitioner practically amounts to depriving her of proper opportunity of defending. It is submitted that summoning of Mohan Singh Charan, the husband of the landlady, is entirely necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and for the questions involved in the matter, both in relation to the ground of default and the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. It is further submitted that in view of the pleadings of the parties where payment of a part of rent in cash has surfaced on record and the petitioner has asserted that the cheques were not presented within time and cash in lieu thereof was accepted, the landlady ought to have been directed to produce such cheques and so also the relevant witnesses including Mohan Singh in evidence. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has though directed production of the original rent note but has not issued any direction in relation to lease agreement specifically referred in the pleadings. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order calls for interference and the applications moved by the petitioner deserve to be allowed. The learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions in Aasandas S/o Shri Vali Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2005 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 431 = RLW 2005(2) Raj. 1281, Ramswaroop vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors. : 2008 (1) WLC (Raj.) 47 = RLW 2007(4) Raj. The learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions in Aasandas S/o Shri Vali Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2005 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 431 = RLW 2005(2) Raj. 1281, Ramswaroop vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors. : 2008 (1) WLC (Raj.) 47 = RLW 2007(4) Raj. 3427, Ramesh Kumar vs. Chandu Lal & Anr. : 2009 (3) WLC (Raj.) 22 = 2009(2) RLW 1547. 12. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is not persuaded to consider interference in this matter in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 13. So far the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, there is no and there cannot be any quarrel with the fundamental of the principles enunciated and applied by this Court which the Rent Tribunal is required to keep in view while dealing with a petition before it under the Act of 2001. However, so far the impugned order dated 05.07.2010 (Annex.7) is concerned, the Tribunal appears to have precisely kept such principles in view and has, thus, rejected the two baseless applications moved by the petitioner while granting the third one for cross-examination of the witnesses. 14. So far the application Annexure-5 moved by the petitioner with the prayer for summoning of the landlady and her husband is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the same with the observations that the affidavits of such persons being not on record, there was no justification to summon them for evidence; and the effect of not producing any particular witness can only be considered at the time of final decision of the petition. The prayer as made by the petitioner for summoning of the landlady and her husband in evidence being totally baseless, cannot be accepted. 15. So far the other application (Annex.4) is concerned, several of the documents as sought by the petitioner are not having even a nexus with the questions involved in the matter and in relation to some of them, even the particulars have not been stated. In any case, the documents that are in possession of the landlady, if not produced and if found relevant, the effect of their non-production can only be considered at the time of final decision of the petition. In any case, the documents that are in possession of the landlady, if not produced and if found relevant, the effect of their non-production can only be considered at the time of final decision of the petition. In relation to the cheques also, the Tribunal has rightly observed that it is for the petitioner-tenant to prove the factum of payment of rent by her own evidence. In relation to such questions too, summoning of the dishonoured cheques, if disallowed by the Tribunal, the order impugned cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error. 16. It is to be imbibed that even when the basic principles of natural justice are required to be kept in view by the Tribunal while dealing with a petition for eviction as has been emphasised by this Court in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, yet the fundamental difference of procedure cannot be ignored that a petition before the Tribunal is required to be dealt with and decided after such summary enquiry as considered necessary by the Tribunal (per Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act of 2001). The Tribunal is, of course, to be guided by the principles of natural justice but has the powers to regulate its own procedure (Per Section 21 ibid) for such summary enquiry. In such proceedings before the Tribunal, the effort on the part of any party to the litigation to get it converted into a fishing and roving enquiry into minute and rather irrelevant details cannot be countenanced. 17. The ratio of the decisions in Aasandas and Ramswaroop (supra) has precisely been applied by the learned Trial Court and for this reason, the application Annexure-6 has been allowed and the petitioner has been permitted to cross-examine the witnesses. The decision in Ramesh Kumar's case (supra) rather relates to an entirely different fact situation where the Tribunal had taken on record the reply belatedly filed by the tenant but the learned Single Judge proceeded to set aside such an order in the writ jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Division Bench did not approve of interference in the writ jurisdiction in such an order passed by the Tribunal while pointing out the fundamentals of principles that the law of procedure is to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it; and that the provisions relating to procedure cannot ordinarily be taken as mandatory. The Hon'ble Division Bench did not approve of interference in the writ jurisdiction in such an order passed by the Tribunal while pointing out the fundamentals of principles that the law of procedure is to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it; and that the provisions relating to procedure cannot ordinarily be taken as mandatory. In one of the cases before it, the Hon'ble Division Bench found the Tribunal rather in error in refusing to take on record the rejoinder of landlord covering new pleas raised by the tenant; and directed the Tribunal to re-consider the question of taking the rejoinder on record. Noteworthy it is that even while emphasising on adherence to the fundamental principles of natural justice, the Hon'ble Division Bench indicated in Ramesh Kumar (supra) that delaying tactics adopted by the party to the proceedings cannot be countenanced. In the present case, the applications as moved by the petitioner, particularly Annexure-4 and Annexure-5, can only be termed as baseless and aimed at delaying the proceedings. The same have rightly been rejected. 18. Taking an overall view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the Tribunal has properly dealt with the applications moved by the petitioner and no case is made out for interference in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.