Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1721 (RAJ)

Prakash Sarees v. Rajendra Kumar Solanki

2014-10-28

SANGEET LODHA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ is directed against order dated 7.4.14 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City in Rent Case No.761/12 (224/11), whereby an application preferred on behalf of the petitioners herein under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short 'the Act of 2001') read with Section 151 CPC seeking leave to file counter to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the respondents, stands rejected. 2. The relevant facts are that the respondents-landlord filed a petition against the petitioners herein under Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolition City, seeking eviction of the petitioners from a commercial premises, on the ground of default in payment of rent. The petition is being contested by the petitioners by filing a reply thereto. The respondents have filed a rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners preferred an application seeking leave to file counter to the rejoinder stating that the rejoinder Prakash Sarees And Anr. v. Rajendra Kumar Solanki And Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5081/14) filed contains numerous new facts, which need to be controverted. 3. The application has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned observing that the rejoinder filed does not contain new facts rather by way of rejoinder, only the averments made by the petitioners in the reply to the petition are controverted/explained. The Rent Tribunal observed that by way of rejoinder the respondents herein has not attempted to set out a new case and therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to file a counter thereto. That apart, the court observed that an application preferred by the petitioners seeking leave to amend the reply for incorporating the facts sought to be incorporated by way of counter to rejoinder already stands rejected. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Rent Tribunal has gravely erred in declining permission to the petitioners to file counter to the rejoinder. Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal of the rejoinder filed goes to show that the respondents have stated numerous new facts which need to be controverted by the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that in the rejoinder filed, the respondents have taken the stand that the receipts produced on behalf of the petitioners Prakash Sarees And Anr. v. Rajendra Kumar Solanki And Ors. Learned counsel submitted that in the rejoinder filed, the respondents have taken the stand that the receipts produced on behalf of the petitioners Prakash Sarees And Anr. v. Rajendra Kumar Solanki And Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5081/14) so as to show that there was a separate tenancy in respect of the underground, relate to yet another shop situated at Ummaid Chowk, which is not correct and therefore, it is absolutely necessary that the petitioners are permitted to controvert the averments made in rejoinder in respect of existence of shop at Ummaid Chowk and the absence of separate tenancy in respect of the shop in question and the underground. Learned counsel submitted that if the petitioners are not permitted to file counter to the rejoinder as prayed for, their defence would be highly prejudiced. 5. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in the rejoinder filed, the petitioners have not set out any new facts rather, the averments made in the reply to the petition have been explained/controverted and therefore, the question of permitting the petitioners to file counter to the rejoinder, does not arise. Learned counsel submitted that all the relevant aspects of the matter have been duly considered by the Rent Tribunal and the findings arrived at cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court. 6. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Prakash Sarees And Anr. v. Rajendra Kumar Solanki And Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5081/14). 7. It is well settled that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas under the garb of filing rejoinder, so as to alter the basis of his plaint. In rejoinder, plaintiff has a right to explain only the additional facts incorporated by the defendant in his written statement. But then, if the rejoinder filed setting out new facts, is taken on record, the defendant cannot be denied an opportunity to file a counter thereto to the extent of new pleas and facts incorporated therein. 8. In rejoinder, plaintiff has a right to explain only the additional facts incorporated by the defendant in his written statement. But then, if the rejoinder filed setting out new facts, is taken on record, the defendant cannot be denied an opportunity to file a counter thereto to the extent of new pleas and facts incorporated therein. 8. It is to be noticed that in the reply filed, the petitioners have taken the stand that there was two separate tenancy in respect of the commercial premises consisting of a shop and an underground and in this regard, certain receipts issued by the landlord late Shri Suresh Chandra have been placed on record. In this view of the matter, by way of rejoinder, the respondents have explained that the set of the receipts produced do not relate to the premises in question rather, they relate to yet another shop let out, situated at Ummaid Chowk, Jodhpur. The petitioners have taken the stand in the reply that the underground was let out to the wife of the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Kamla Devi, which has been explained by the respondents by way of rejoinder taking the stand that none of the receipts sought to be produced relate to the premises in question. The Prakash Sarees And Anr. v. Rajendra Kumar Solanki And Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5081/14) respondents have also averred that the shop situated at Ummaid Chowk, was vacated by the petitioners herein in the month of April,02. The documents relating to the litigation between the parties in respect of the shop situated at Ummaid Chowk have also been placed on record. In this view of the matter, the stand taken by the respondents explaining/controverting the averments made by the petitioners in the reply to the petition, by no means could be construed to be the stand altering the basis of the rent petition. 9. Thus, having gone through the pleadings on record, this court is of the opinion that the rejoinder filed does not contain any such new facts so as to make the petitioners entitled to file a counter thereto. 10. In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdiction error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. 10. In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdiction error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.Petition Dismissed. *******