Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 530 (RAJ)

Saiyad Ahmed Ali v. Murlidhar Pandey

2012-02-28

SANGEET LODHA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 25.08.2011 of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara whereby an appeal preferred by the respondent/tenant against the judgment dated 02.12.2006 of the Rent Tribunal, bhilwara allowing the petition preferred by the petitioners/ landlord under Sections 6, 9 read with Section 15 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ("the Act"), has been allowed and the matter stands remanded to the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara for decision afrest, after due consideration of the documents produced by the respondent/tenant, permitted to be taken on record by the Appellate Rent Tribunal while allowing the applications preferred under Order XXXXI Rule 27 CPC and other available evidence. 2. The petitioners preferred a petition seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises in question on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity of the petitioner No. 1 for the purpose of his family's residence and for establishing an office of consultancy. The application was contested by the respondent/tenant by filing a reply thereto. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed the issues and parties led their evidence. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal found bona fide necessity of the petitioner No. 1 of the premises in question duly proved and accordingly, the respondent/ tenant was directed to be evicted from the premises in question. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Tribunal and the certificate for recovery of possession issued in pursuance thereof, the respondent/tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent/tenant preferred three applications under Order XXXXI Rule 27 CPC read with Section 19(9) of the Act for taking the additional documentary evidence on record. The petitioners/landlord also filed an application under Order XXXXI Rule 27 CPC seeking production of certain documents. 5. The Appellate Rent Tribunal after considering the rival submissions found that the additional evidence produced by the respondent/tenant is germane to the matter in dispute and therefore, in the interest of justice, the same deserves to be taken on record. Accordingly, the applications preferred by the respondent/tenant under order XXXXI Rule 27 as aforesaid were allowed and the matter has been remanded to the Rent Tribunal for decision afresh after taking into consideration the documents and other available evidence on record. Accordingly, the applications preferred by the respondent/tenant under order XXXXI Rule 27 as aforesaid were allowed and the matter has been remanded to the Rent Tribunal for decision afresh after taking into consideration the documents and other available evidence on record. However, while allowing the applications preferred by the petitioners/landlord under Order XXXXI Rule 27 was not even considered. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that while allowing the additional evidence to be produced, the appellate Court had no occasion to set aside the order passed by the Rent Tribunal directing eviction of the respondent/ tenant from the suit premises. Learned counsel urged that while allowing the additional evidence to be produced, the appellate Rent Tribunal could have either taken such evidence or could have directed the Rent Tribunal against whose order the appeal was preferred, to take such evidence and to sent it when taken to the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has committed a jurisdictional error in setting aside the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal solely on the ground that the respondent/tenant was permitted to produce the additional evidence on record. That apart, the learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal was under an obligation to decide the application preferred by the petitioners as well while passing the order impugned. Learned counsel submitted that while passing the order impugned, the Appellate Rent Tribunal should have also permitted the petitioner/landlord to lead the evidence in rebuttal to the additional evidence sought to be produced on behalf of the respondent/tenant. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the respondent/tenant has no objection if the application preferred by the petitioners/landlord is also allowed and the additional evidence sought to be produced by them is taken on record. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent also does not oppose the setting aside of the appellate order to the extent it set asides the order of eviction passed by the Rent Tribunal. However, learned counsel agrees that the matter may be remanded to the Rent Tribunal to record oral evidence in respect of the additional documentary evidence permitted to be taken on record with the right to lead evidence in rebuttal to both the parties. 8. However, learned counsel agrees that the matter may be remanded to the Rent Tribunal to record oral evidence in respect of the additional documentary evidence permitted to be taken on record with the right to lead evidence in rebuttal to both the parties. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also agrees for disposal of the present writ petition in the terms agreed on behalf of the respondent/ tenant as aforesaid. 9. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 05.08.2011 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal in Appeal No. 11/07 setting aside the judgment and the certificate dated 02.12.2006 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Rent Case No. 1/03 is set aside. However, the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal allowing the application preferred by the respondent/ tenant for taking additional evidence on record is maintained. The application preferred on behalf of the petitioners/landlord under Order XXXXI Rule 27 CPC for taking the additional evidence on record shall also stand allowed. The appeal shall remain pending consideration before the appellate Rent Tribunal. The Rent Tribunal shall take oral evidence in respect of the additional documentary evidence produced on behalf of the petitioners/ tenant and the respondent/ landlord, permitted to be taken on record, which relates to issue No. 2 framed by the Rent Tribunal. It is made clear that both the parties shall have right to lead evidenced in rebuttal to the additional evidence, oral and documentary permitted to be taken on record as aforesaid. The Rent Tribunal shall complete the entire exercise of taking the additional evidence within a period ot two months from the date of this order. The Rent Tribunal shall send the additional evidence taken to the Appellate Rent Tribunal, which shall decide the appeal preferred by the respondent/tenant after due consideration of the entire evidence on record in accordance with law. No order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******