Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1524 (RAJ)

Preetam Singh @ Preetam Das v. Chandra Prakash

2014-09-15

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : R.S. Chauhan, J. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC for deleting two issues framed by the learned trial court, the petitioner has approached this court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.9.1999 the petitioner filed a civil suit for eviction, arrears of rent and permanent injunction against Chandra Prakash, the defendant-respondent No.1 before this court. In the plaint, the petitioner has claimed that the suit premises were rented out for Rs.00/- per month. The respondent had paid the rent till April, 1997. However, thereafter no rent has been paid. Therefore, he has committed a default for more than six months. The petitioner further claimed that the defendant denied his title as landlord and declared himself to be the owner of the property in dispute. The respondent filed written statement and denied the averments of the plaint. Subsequently issues were framed by the learned trial court. However, neither in the plaint, nor in the written statement there was any averment to the effect that the suit premises was needed for bona fide necessity. The specific grounds for seeking eviction were default in payment of rent, and denial of title. Yet the issues No.7 and 8 were framed with regard to partial eviction, and with regard to comparative hardship that may be suffered by the tenant in comparison to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The petitioner filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC wherein he pleaded that since neither in the plaint, nor in the written statement referred to the bona fide necessity of the petitioner-landlord, issues No.7 and 8 were irrelevant. Therefore, they should be deleted. However, by order dated 23.9.2013 the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this court. 3. Mr. Abhi Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the question of comparative hardship would arise only in case the eviction suit were filed on the basis of bona fide necessity. However, the present suit has not been filed on the basis of bona fide necessity. Therefore, the application of Section 14(2) of the Rent Control Act, 1950, and framing of issues No.7 and 8 is inexplicable. However, the present suit has not been filed on the basis of bona fide necessity. Therefore, the application of Section 14(2) of the Rent Control Act, 1950, and framing of issues No.7 and 8 is inexplicable. Needlessly, two issues have been framed which are not even germane to the controversy in issue. Secondly, the reasoning given by the learned Magistrate is highly misplaced. Section 14 is absolutely inapplicable to the present case. 4. On the other hand, Mr. P.L. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent, has reiterated the logic given by the learned Magistrate and has pleaded that even if there is no pleading with regard to the bona fide necessity even then the learned Magistrate was justified in framing issues No.7 and 8. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. It is, indeed, trite to state that the issues have to be framed strictly within the parameters of pleadings of the parties. Issues should not be framed on the basis of those facts which are not even pleaded, or on the basis of those grounds which are not even taken by the parties. In the present case, admittedly not an iota of pleading was there with regard to bona fide necessity of the petitioner. In fact, the case of the petitioner is restricted only to two grounds, namely default in payment of rental amount, and denial of title. 7. A bare perusal of Section 14 of the Act of 1950 clearly reveals that the Section comes into force and relates to a case only if the ground of substantial damage to the premises, or the ground of a reasonable and bona fide necessity of the landlord is taken. Undoubtedly, neither of these two grounds were even pleaded by the petitioner. Thus, naturally Section 14 has no relevance to the suit filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Magistrate is unjustified in relying upon a commentary and holding that "even if there were no averments in the pleading even then the court was justified in framing issue". Such a view is clearly untenable. Since the issues No.7 and 8 go beyond the limits of the dispute existing between the parties, clearly issues No.7 and 8 are unconnected to the dispute. Such a view is clearly untenable. Since the issues No.7 and 8 go beyond the limits of the dispute existing between the parties, clearly issues No.7 and 8 are unconnected to the dispute. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 8. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is hereby, allowed. The impugned order dated 23.9.2013 is hereby, quashed and set aside. The issues No.7 and 8 shall stand deleted. The stay application also stands disposed of. Writ Petition Allowed.