Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2806 (RAJ)

Prakash Chand Goyal v. Rent Tribunal, Alwar

2011-12-21

ALOK SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been laid against the order dated 03.11.2011, passed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar, whereby the Rent Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner-tenant's (hereinafter 'the tenant') application for consolidation of the original application (OA) for eviction under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001') with another separate original application (OA) for revision of rent filed by the landlord under Section 6 of the Act of 2001. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord (hereinafter 'the landlord) filed two separate OAs against the tenant. In OA No.78/2005 filed under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 eviction of the tenant was sought inter alia on the grounds of bona fide and reasonable necessity, arrears of rent and default and also for revision of rent. 3. Another OA bearing No.147/2005 came to be filed by the landlord against the tenant for revision of rent. In the said OA, an order dated 05.04.2008 came to be passed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar wherein it denied to the landlord the permission to lead secondary evidence with reference to Section 65 of the Evidence Act in respect of two documents pertaining to accounts. Against the said order dated 05.04.2008 in a writ petition before this Court (SBCWP No.4585/2008), this Court vide order dated 12.05.2008 was pleased to stay the further proceedings in OA No.147/2005 before the Rent Tribunal, Alwar. 4. In view of the aforesaid interim order dated 12.05.2008 staying the further proceedings in OA No.147/2005 pending before the Rent Tribunal, the tenant moved an application for consolidation of OA No.78/2005 with the OA No.147/2005. Simultaneously, the landlord moved an application in OA No.78/2005 praying for the deletion of issue No.1 in OA No.78/2005 which related to revision of rent apparently in view of the fact that a separate OA had been filed by the landlord in respect thereof (OA No.147/2005). The Rent Tribunal vide order dated 03.11.2011 on the landlord's application was pleased to delete the issue No.1 in OA No.78/2005. 5. The Rent Tribunal vide order dated 03.11.2011 on the landlord's application was pleased to delete the issue No.1 in OA No.78/2005. 5. On consideration of the application for consolidation of OA No.78/2005 with OA No.147/2005 as prayed for by the tenant in his application, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the proceedings under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 on the one hand and Section 9 of the Act of 2001 on the other were independent of each other and determined with reference to distinct procedures under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 2001 respectively. The learned Tribunal therefore held that the proceedings under Sections 9 and 6 of the Act of 2001 being wholly disparate and unrelated more particularly in view of the deletion of issue No.1 in OA No.78/2005 relating to revision of rent, there was no occasion for consolidating the two OAs. 6. The tenant has challenged the order dated 03.11.2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal in OA No.78/2005 in so far as it rejected the prayer to consolidate the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 in OA No.78/2005 on the one hand and under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 in OA No.147/2005 on the other. 7. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner-tenant as also the respondent-landlord and perused the impugned order. 8. A bare look at the Rent Control Act of 2001 indicates that the Rent Tribunal was absolutely spot on in holding that proceedings under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 on the one hand and under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 on the other were being pursued independent proceedings not related to each other. The Tribunal further held that the commonality of issues in the two OAs was absent more particularly in view of the deletion of issue No.1 in OA No.78/2005 in so far as it related to the revision of rent. The Rent Tribunal thereupon came to the correct conclusion that in the facts of the case, there was no warrant to consolidate the OA No.78/2005 with OA No.147/2005. 9. I am of the view that nothing illegal or vitiated can be found in the impugned order dated 03.11.2011. 10. I therefore find no occasion to interfere in the writ petition and the same is therefore dismissed.Stay application is also dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******