Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2312 (RAJ)

Jagdish Rai Bansal v. Rent Tribunal

2013-12-17

ALOK SHARMA

body2013
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 7.9.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur dismissing the petitioners non-applicants (Hereinafter `the non-applicants') application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the reply to eviction petition No. 639/2004. The non-applicants are also aggrieved of the order dated 7.9.2013 in so far as the learned Rent Tribunal has allowed the taking on record of documents in the subsequent eviction petition (675/2012) filed by the respondent applicant Satyendra Prasad Garg- a co-applicant in 639/2004 under section 10(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter `the Act of 2001') on the case file of eviction petition No. 639/2004. 2. Facts relevant are that one Nagendra Prasad Garg (hereinafter `co-applicants') and his son Satyendra Prasad Garg filed an eviction petition No. 639/2004 before the Rent Tribunal against the non-applicants under Sections 6 and 9(a)(g) & (k) of the Act of 2001. Summarized the grounds on which the eviction was sought were mesurer of property for commercial purposes albeit let out for residence, default, personal and bonafide necessity as also the availability of alternative accommodation with the non-applicants. This eviction petition 639/2004 continued to remain pending at the stage of the defendant's evidence before the Rent Tribunal for about eight years. In the interregnum Nagendra Prasad Garg appears to have expired, the suit property in eviction petition No. 639/2004 come to the share of Satyendra Prasad Garg (under a family settlement of 11.10.2012) who earlier engaged as a Professor at the Medical College, Bikaner retired. In these circumstances Satyendra Prasad Garg moved another application under section 10(1)(b) of the Act of 2001 which provides that on the retirement of a landlord if any eviction petition is moved within one year thereof the landlord would be entitled to immediate possession of the tenanted premises. 3. The non-applicants then moved an application before the Rent Tribunal under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend their reply to eviction petition No. 639/2004. It was stated that the factum of an eviction petition No. 639/2004. 3. The non-applicants then moved an application before the Rent Tribunal under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend their reply to eviction petition No. 639/2004. It was stated that the factum of an eviction petition No. 639/2004. It was stated that the factum of an eviction petition No. 675/2012 having been filed under Section 10(1)(b) of the Act of 2001 was a subsequent event purportedly having a bearing on the outcome of the earlier eviction petition 639/2004 and therefore, the non-applicants should be allowed to amend the written statement. Badly and wrongly advised, the applicant on his part also sought before the Rent Tribunal in eviction petition 639/2004 to treat the averments and the contents of eviction petition 675/2012 filed under Sec. 10(1)(b) of the Act of 2001 read as part and parcel of the grounds of eviction petition 639/2004. The learned Rent Tribunal has dismissed the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the non-applicants and while disallowing the prayer of the applicant to treat the averments and contents of subsequent eviction petition 675/2012 as part and parcel of the earlier eviction petition 639/2004 allowed the documents enclosed therewith to be taken on record of eviction petition 639/2004 and to have them exhibited. 4. Mr. Sanjay Joshi, counsel appearing for the non-applicants had submitted that it is well settled that subsequent events which have the potential of eclipsing a cause of action or a part of cause of action in a pending eviction petition should be taken on record. It has been submitted that the eviction petition 675/2012 was a subsequent event and amendment to the reply in petition No. 639/2004 ought to have been allowed by the Rent Tribunal on the non-applicants' application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. This was wrongly and unjustly denied. He submitted that the order dated 7.9.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal is also bad and contradictory for having dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the non-applicants for taking subsequent events on record on the one hand and yet on the other hand allowing the applicant to bring documents relating to those very subsequent events on record of the pending eviction petition 639/2004. 5. Mrs. 5. Mrs. Pankaj Sharma, counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that an eviction petition under section 10(1)(b) of the Act of 2001 is independent of an eviction petition under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. She submitted that the proceedings under section 10 of the Act of 2001 are based solely on various special category of events/persons/circumstances detailed therein warrant immediate possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord without any specific grounds or eviction as set out in section 9 of the Act of 2001 being proved. Contra distinguished to an eviction petition under Section 10 of the Act of 2001, an eviction petition under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 has to make out and prove one of the 13 grounds covered under clause (a) to clause (m) thereof to entitle a landlord to a certificate of possession and the corresponding eviction of the tenant. She submitted that consequently a filing of the petition under section 10 of the Act of 2001 is not a subsequent event relevant to a pending eviction petition under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 and therefore any amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC based thereon cannot be sought in the pending petition under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. She submitted that the cause of action for laying an eviction petition under Section 10 of the Act of 2001 is distinct and different from a cause of action for laying one under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 and the two cannot coalesce. She further submitted that as far as the impugned order of the Rent Tribunal taking on record the documents filed by the applicant relating to the subsequent eviction petitioner is concerned it causes no prejudice to the non-applicants and does not burden them with any liability to discharge beyond their defences in eviction petition 639/2004 filed by the applicant on the ground of default, misuser, bonafide and reasonable necessity and availability of alternative accommodation with the non-applicants. 6. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order. 7. A bare look at the scheme of 2001 indicates that eviction petitions under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 and those under Section 10 of the Act of 2001 belong to a different genre. 6. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order. 7. A bare look at the scheme of 2001 indicates that eviction petitions under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 and those under Section 10 of the Act of 2001 belong to a different genre. In-fact the procedure for trying the petitioners under sections 9 and 10 of the Act of 2001 is different. Section 15 lays down the manner of adjudicating a petition under section 9 of the Act of 2001 and section 16 the manner of dealing with a petition under Section 10 of the Act of 2001. Consequently, filing of a petition under section 9 of the Act of 2001 does not discount a subsequent petition under section 10 of the Act of 2001 if the statutorily prescribed conditions or circumstances for the invoking of the said provision arise. One such circumstance for invoking the provisions of section 10 of the Act of 2001 as in clause (1)(b) thereof lies in the government servant who is the landlord of the tenanted property retiring and taking his special remedy within one year of the retirement. As the eviction petition on the one hand under Section 9 and on the other hand under Section 10 of the Act of 2001 belong to entirely different and unconnected categories of cause of action in the scheme of 2001, the filing of subsequent eviction petition under section 10(1)(b) or any other clause of section 10 of the Act of 2001 does not disrupt/dislocate the prior eviction petition under section 9 of the Act of 2001 where reasonable and bonafide necessity or any other statutorily prescribed grounds has to be established on evidence. Hence a section 10 Act of 2001 petition is not a subsequent event relevant to a pending section 9 Act of 2001 eviction petition. 8. Eviction under Section 10(1)(b) of the Act of 2001 is to follow as a matter of course only with the Rent Tribunal finding as a fact that the landlord applicant belongs to one of the classes of persons covered under Section 10 of the Act of 2001 and satisfies the filing criteria on the time issue. 8. Eviction under Section 10(1)(b) of the Act of 2001 is to follow as a matter of course only with the Rent Tribunal finding as a fact that the landlord applicant belongs to one of the classes of persons covered under Section 10 of the Act of 2001 and satisfies the filing criteria on the time issue. The subsequent eviction petition under section 10 of the Act of 2001 i.e. 675/2012 filed by Satyendra Prasad Garg was thus totally irrelevant to the determination of the section 9 of the Act of 2001 application. A different cause of action wholly distinct and unrelated to an earlier one cannot be held to entitle the filing of an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for bringing the purported "subsequent events" on record. 9. In my considered opinion, the dismissal of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the non-applicants was consequently wholly legal, on valid grounds and warranted-allowing it would have been an patient error. To my mind the said application apart from being misdirected appears to have been filed to further delay the final adjudication of eviction petition No. 639/2004 filed under section 9 of the Act of 2001 and pending for the last over eight years even though the provisions of section 15(5) of the Act of 2001 albeit directory, provide that an eviction petition under section 9 of the Act of 2001 must be disposed of within 240 days of the service of summons on the opposite party. As far as the impugned order dated 7.9.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal allowing the taking on record of eviction petition 639/2004 the documents in eviction petition No. 675/2012 is concerned, in my considered view the said order-to that extent-deserves to be quashed and set aside. The petitions under Section 10(1)(b) of the Act of 2001 as also the special procedure prescribed for their adjudication under Section 16 of the Act of 2001 are wholly distinct, different and independent from proceedings for eviction under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 and proceeding therefor under section 15 of the said Act. The learned trial court erred in relating one to the other contrary to the scheme of the Act of 2001. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.