Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2201 (RAJ)

LR’s of Sohanlal Paliwal v. Amba Lal

2013-12-06

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner is challenging the validity of order dated 25.5.2012 (Annex.P-12) and order dated 1.4.2013 (Annex.P-15) passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Case No. 81/2010 and prayed that application filed by the petitioner dated 18.11.2011 may be allowed whereby a prayer was made to take certain documents on record. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the application filed by the respondents for eviction against the petitioner's father Sohan Lal Paliwal under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act before the Rent Tribdnal, Udaipur although reply and affidavit was filed by late Sohan Lal Paliwal, father of the petitioner; but, in the reply and affidavit, it was specifically pleaded that notice given by respondent-applicant was not received by him or by any of his employees of the restaurant in between 9.2.2010 to 12.3.2010. But, due to mistake the certificate obtained and certified copy of the receipt were not produced in the Court but, after death of late Sohan Lal, when the petitioners were taken on record as legal heirs of late Sohan Lal, then, an application was filed to take certain documents on record and petitioners filed affidavit as witness and documents to prove that service as alleged in the application was not made, so also, the receipt of the rent so deposited may be taken on record. The learned Trial Court rejected the said application and passed an order to delete those para of the affidavit in which there was mention of those documents. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the affidavit of late Sohan Lal, father of the petitioner, in which, he was categorically said that notice was not served upon him or any of the employees of his restaurant and, now, documents have been filed by the petitioners issued by the Postal Department, in which, it is mentioned that notice was received by one Heera Lal. Therefore, I am of the view that the order impugned is not sustainable in law. 4. The documents are very much relevant to adjudicate the controversy by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur. Therefore, I am of the view that the order impugned is not sustainable in law. 4. The documents are very much relevant to adjudicate the controversy by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur. Therefore, after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, it emerges from the facts that the order impugned in this writ petition Annex.P-12 dated 25.5.2012 and Annex.P-15 dated 1.4.2013 are not sustainable in law.Therefore, this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is hereby allowed. The application filed by the petitioners dated 18.11.2011 for taking the documents on record is hereby allowed with further direction that order of deleting the paras of the affidavit of the petitioners is hereby quashed and those paras ace-restored for adjudicating the controversy with cost of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be paid to respondent Amba Lal within one month.Petition allowed. *******