Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 100 (UTT)

Raj Sachdeva v. Mahendra Pratap Sah

2014-03-20

ALOK SINGH

body2014
Judgment Alok Singh, J. Landlord/respondents, herein, preferred an application under Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short the Act) seeking release of accommodation with a request to evict the tenant from tenanted property and to hand over the peaceful vacant possession to the landlord/respondents, herein. 2. In a proceeding arising out of Section 21 of the Act, parties lead their respective evidence by way of affidavits. Undisputedly, as per Rule 34 (6) of the Act affidavit shall be filed in the proceeding under this Act as per requirement, as provided under the CPC. Landlord/respondents filed an affidavit in support of release application, thereafter, tenant petitioner also filed his evidence in the shape of counter affidavit. Subsequently, landlord/respondents filed a rejoinder affidavit annexing therewith 20 documents. Rejoinder affidavit along with 20 documents was filed on 24.11.2011. Tenant/petitioner thereafter, moved an application (paper no. 66C) stating therein that landlord/respondents filed additional evidence along with rejoinder without seeking permission/leave of the court, therefore, rejoinder affidavit along with 20 documentary evidence should be returned to the landlord/respondents. However, application, so filed, by the tenant/petitioner was rejected vide order dated 08.12.2011 and thereafter, release application, moved by the landlord/respondents, was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 29.02.2012. Feeling aggrieved, tenant/petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the District Judge, Nainital, which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 20 of 2012. However, appeal was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 07.09.2012. 3. Feeling aggrieved, tenant/petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Anirudh Bhatt, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents and have carefully perused the record. 5. Undisputedly, as per Section 34 read with Rule 22 of the Act, certain provisions of CPC are made applicable, however, Act is silent about the procedure regarding pleadings and as to how evidence shall be produced in rent control proceeding except that cases shall be proved by way of affidavits. However, from the very inception of the Act, it is being understood that pleadings in Rent Control proceedings shall be governed by the broad principles of Orders 6, 7 and 8 of CPC. However, from the very inception of the Act, it is being understood that pleadings in Rent Control proceedings shall be governed by the broad principles of Orders 6, 7 and 8 of CPC. Moreover, Rent Control Authority hearing the cases under the Act is a Civil Court, therefore, in my considered opinion, in view of Section 141 CPC, broad principles of all the provisions of the CPC should be applied in all the proceedings before the Rent Control Authorities and this is the reason pleadings under the Act are governed by broad principles of Orders 6, 7 and 8 of CPC. 6. After the amendments in CPC in the year 1999, which was enforced from 2002, parties are required to file list of documents as well as copies of all the documents along with their respective pleadings, as required under Order 7 Rule 14 and under Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC. Any additional evidence can be produced on record by permission/leave of the court, as required under Sub Rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order 7 as well as Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 1-A of Order 8 of CPC. 7. This procedure must be followed for fair play and proper adjudication of the case, so that none of the party should be taken by surprise, at subsequent stage of the case under the Rent Control Act. If it is not followed, any party may file any evidence at any stage of the proceedings, which would be against the principles of fair play. 8. In my considered opinion, rejoinder affidavit should be confined to controvert the contents of counter affidavit and plaintiff should not be permitted to say something new which was not in the original pleading and evidence. If plaintiff seeks to file some additional evidence along with rejoinder affidavit or wants to take out some new things in rejoinder affidavit, which was neither here nor there, then of course, he has to seek leave of the court for additional (new) evidence. If leave is granted to the plaintiff then of course, fair opportunity should be granted to the defendant to rebut the same, otherwise, plaintiff would be in a better position and would amount to walk over ignoring the principles of natural justice. 9. Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Sr. If leave is granted to the plaintiff then of course, fair opportunity should be granted to the defendant to rebut the same, otherwise, plaintiff would be in a better position and would amount to walk over ignoring the principles of natural justice. 9. Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that since tenant/petitioner was permitted to place on record additional evidence, during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, tenant/petitioner could have filed documents in rebuttal too to the documents filed by the landlord/respondents along with rejoinder affidavit before the trial court. 10. Additional evidence filed by the tenant during the pendency of the appeal are assessment orders and house tax receipt to prove his possession over property, therefore filing of these documents cannot be said to be in rebuttal of the evidence filed by the landlord/respondents before the Prescribed Authority along with the rejoinder affidavit. Since neither leave of the court was sought by the landlord/respondents to place on record the additional evidence with rejoinder affidavit nor opportunity was granted to tenant/petitioner/defendant to rebut those documents, therefore, it can very well be said that defendant /tenant was denied the fair opportunity to rebut the documents or in other words, to defend himself. 11. In view of the above, impugned judgments passed by the courts below stand vitiated. Therefore, appeal is allowed. Both the impugned judgments are set aside. However, matter is remanded back to the learned Prescribed Authority to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity to the tenant/petitioner to file evidence in rebuttal to the documents filed by the landlord/respondents along with rejoinder affidavit. 12. Learned Prescribed Authority shall make every endeavour to conclude the trial of the application and decide the same preferably within six months from the first date fixed before the learned Prescribed Authority. Parties are directed to appear before the Prescribed Authority on 16.04.2014 for further orders. No order as to costs.