Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1565 (RAJ)

Bhag Singh v. Savitri Devi

2013-09-09

GOVIND MATHUR

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Shri C.S. Kotwani has lodged caveat on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to oppose admission of this petition for writ and any orders on stay petition. A copy of the petition for writ has already been applied to learned counsel for the caveator. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. 3. Admit. No need to issue notice as the contesting respondent has already represented by his counsel. Looking to narrow amplitude of the issue involved the writ petition is heard today itself with consent of learned counsels. 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 has filed a petition for eviction with allegation that the tenant in the premises in question has defaulted in making payment of rent. It is further alleged that he also renounced the title of landlord. 5. A reply to the petition has been filed by the petitioner with assertion inter-alia that the respondent No. 1 created a power of attorney fraudulently and got-2- executed a sale deed. The sale deed is subject matter of a civil suit pending before the court of learned District Judge, Sriganganagar. Alongwith reply to the petition the petitioner also preferred an application with reference to provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to stay over the proceedings in the petition till disposal of the suit preferred by him to set aside the sale deed. The Rent Tribunal by an order dated 25.5.2011 rejected the application with observations that the matters in issue in two proceedings are not substantially same. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.5.2011 the petitioner preferred a petition for writ (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5830/2011) before this Court and that came to be allowed by the judgment dated 25.7.2011. While accepting the writ petition this Court opined that the application could have not been rejected with an abstract reference to the principle that the question of ownership is not germane to the petition for eviction. The question in its peculiar nature ought to have been examined after reference to all the pleadings of the parties in two matters. The order dated 25.5.2011 was set aside by this Court and the Rent Tribunal was directed to reconsider the application preferred by the petitioner with reference to Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure . The question in its peculiar nature ought to have been examined after reference to all the pleadings of the parties in two matters. The order dated 25.5.2011 was set aside by this Court and the Rent Tribunal was directed to reconsider the application preferred by the petitioner with reference to Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure . In pursuant to the direction aforesaid, learned Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar has passed the order dated 10.7.2013 with conclusion that the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2001") is a special legislation to which Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable. The finding is based upon a judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in CRP No. 4189/1999, decided on 25.9.2001, Kona Kathamma & Ors. v. Gumta Mukala Srinivasarao . Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.7.2013 this petition for writ is preferred. 6. The order impugned on its face is bad and deserves to be quashed. 7. Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act of 2001 provides that the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to other provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder and shall have powers to regulate their own procedure. The provision aforesaid in no manner debars application of the Code of Civil Procedure. It simply mentions that the Tribunals are not bound by the procedure, meaning thereby that the Tribunal may adopt its own procedure to secure objects of the Act of 2001 and while doing so it is not strictly abide by the Code of Civil Procedure. It is for the Tribunal to choose its procedure and that may be as per Code of Civil Procedure too, if that ensures the complete objectivity without causing any injury or even a scratch to the object of the Act of 2001. So far as Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, that is having underlying object to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of same matter in issue. So far as Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, that is having underlying object to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of same matter in issue. This object is with a view to avoid two parallel trials on the same issue by two courts and to avoid recording of conflicting findings on issues which are directly or substantially under consideration in previously instituted suit. This-4- procedure may in the name of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure or otherwise is having a foundation of avoiding confusion, plurality of litigation and conflicting or confronting conclusions on the same issues. The trial court, thus, should have examined the application submitted by the petitioner with spirit of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also in light of the observations made by this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.5830/2011. 8. Accordingly, the petition for writ is allowed. The order impugned dated 10.7.2013 is set aside. The application preferred under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner is restored with a direction to the trial court to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law expeditiously.Petition Allowed. *******