Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2525 (RAJ)

Salag Ram Gehlot v. Yashoda Bhati

2011-11-22

SANGEET LODHA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.9.2010 of Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, whereby the counter to rejoinder filed by the petitioner/tenant has been refused to be taken on record. 2. The respondent/landlord filed a petition before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the suit premises on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity in terms of Section 9(1) of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short "the Act"). The application is being contested by the petitioner/tenant by filing a reply thereto. The respondent/landlord filed rejoinder to the reply along with an additional affidavit. According to the petitioner/tenant, the rejoinder filed contains new facts and grounds and therefore, the same was required to be controverted and therefore, he filed a counter to the rejoinder alongwith an affidavit. However, the rent Tribunal has refused to take the same on record observing that no new ground has been incorporated in the rejoinder filed. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the rejoinder filed by the respondent/landlord, it is apparent that it contains new facts and grounds and therefore, in the interest of justice, the Rent Tribunal should have taken the counter filed by the petitioner on record. Drawing the attention of this Court to para No. 6 of the rejoinder, learned counsel submitted that the respondent/landlord has taken the stand that the premises in question is lying vacant and the same is not being used by the petitioner/tenant and therefore, though the ground of non user of the premises is not taken in the petition filed, but so as to assess the comparative hardship, these facts are relevant and therefore, atleast to this extent, the rent Tribunal should have allowed the petitioner to file a counter to the rejoinder. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that in terms of Section 9(i) of the Act, the Court is not required to assess the comparative hardship and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent/landlord has set out any new case by way of rejoinder and therefore, order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the pleadings of the parties placed on record. 6. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the pleadings of the parties placed on record. 6. In Surendra Mehta v. Bapu Lai, 2008(1) DNJ (Raj.) 501 , after due consideration of the provisions of Sections 15 and 21 of the Act of 2001, this Court opined: "11. The learned Tribunal has also erred in holding that since there is no provision permitting filing of the counter to the rejoinder, therefore, the petitioner herein cannot be permitted to file reply to the rejoinder. It is true that in sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Act of 2001, permits filing of the rejoinder but there is no specific provision for permitting any subsequent pleadings thereafter. However, sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act of 2001 specifically provides that the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the principle of natural justice and subject to other provision of the Act or rules made thereunder and shall have power to regulate their own procedure and for the purposes of discharging their function under the Act, they shall have same powers as are vested in Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by trying the suit or appeal in respect of matters specifically enumerated and any other matter as may be prescribed. Therefore, there is no reason as to why the principle underlying the provisions of Order 8, Rule 9 C.P.C. may not be made applicable to the proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 2001. That apart, the procedure provided for the trial of the suit and misc. proceedings are meant for finding out of truth and impart the justice between the parties. Needless to say that the procedure laid down are always the hand maid of justice and the cause of the justice may not be permitted to be defeated on account of procedural technicalities. A bare perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act 2001 goes to show that the Rent Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal may not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but, they are bound to adopt the procedure in conformity with the principle of natural justice. A bare perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act 2001 goes to show that the Rent Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal may not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but, they are bound to adopt the procedure in conformity with the principle of natural justice. It is to be noticed that such provision requiring observance of principle of natural justice by the judicial bodies and quasi judicial authorities and are generally not found incorporated in statutes specifically. In my considered opinion, while providing that the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal Shall-not be bound by procedure laid down by Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the legislature has consciously and purposely incorporated the said provision that proceeding before the Tribunal shall be guided by the principle of natural justice obviously, for the reason that observance thereof is considered to be assurance of justice and fairness. It is fundamental principle of natural justice that defence of a party to the proceedings before all Courts, judicial bodies and quasi judicial authorities must always be fairly heard. Therefore, viewed from any angle order impugned passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in eye of law. If the learned Tribunal permits the rejoinder filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to be taken on record then the petitioner herein cannot be denied an opportunity to file a counter to the same to the extent of the new pleas and facts incorporated therein by the respondent No. 1. 7. Indisputably, the averments made in para No. 6 of the rejoinder are set out by the respondent/landlord so has to make out the case that the premises in question is not being used by the tenant for the purpose it is let out whereas, the respondent/landlord has bona fide necessity of the premises in question and therefore, if the petitioner/tenant is directed to be evicted, no hardship will be caused to him. In considered opinion of this Court, the new averments made by the respondent/landlord in the rejoinder as aforesaid need to be controverted by the petitioner/tenant by filing an appropriate counter and therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Rent Tribunal was not justified in refusing to take the counter filed on behalf of the petitioner in toto. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 25.9.2010 passed by the Rent Tribunal is set aside. The petitioner/tenant is permitted to file counter to the averments made by the respondent/landlord in para NO. 6 of the rejoinder alongwith an affidavit in support thereof.Writ Petition Allowed. *******