Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 763 (RAJ)

Ramesh Chandak v. Rent Tribunal, Bikaner Anr.

2014-03-25

SANGEET LODHA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 5.5.13 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner, whereby an application preferred by the petitioners under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) of CPC, seeking leave of the court to produce the documents, stands rejected. 2. The relevant facts are that the respondent no. 2 therein filed a petition under Section 9 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act") seeking eviction of the petitioners from the premises, a shop, on the ground of reasonable & bona fide necessity. The petition is being contested by the petitioners by filing a reply thereto. The respondent-landlord has taken the stand that the tenancy is oral, however, the petitioners-tenant had taken the stand that at the time of letting out the premises, he had advanced a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to the respondent-landlord vide cheque no.773766 dated 22.3.85 as security deposit and accordingly, a written agreement was executed between the parties. As per the agreement, the security deposit is to be refunded by the respondent-landlord to the petitioners-tenant on the premises being vacated. 3. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioners-tenant preferred an application for taking on record the said agreement and a partition deed executed by the petitioners no.1 & 2 in respect of the business carried on in the premises in question. The application has been rejected by the trial court observing that nothing has been explained in the application as to how the documents produced are relevant to the controversy involved in the matter and will help the court in adjudication of the dispute raised. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the agreement sought to be produced on record is relied upon by the petitioners in the reply to the petition filed and specific stand is taken regarding security deposit in para no.27 of the reply. Learned counsel submitted that under the agreement the amount of security deposit has to be refunded by the landlord on the petitioners vacating the premises and in case of failure to refund, the petitioners have right to retain the possession of the premises and therefore, it is absolutely necessary to tender the said document in evidence. 5. Learned counsel submitted that under the agreement the amount of security deposit has to be refunded by the landlord on the petitioners vacating the premises and in case of failure to refund, the petitioners have right to retain the possession of the premises and therefore, it is absolutely necessary to tender the said document in evidence. 5. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in the petition preferred for eviction of the tenant on the ground of reasonable & bona fide necessity, the document sought to be produced has no relevance inasmuch as, for decision of the issue regarding reasonable & bona fide necessity, the terms of the agreement alleged to have been entered into between the parties have no bearing. Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that in absence of any explanation regarding relevancy of the documents sought to be produced, the Rent Tribunal has committed no error in rejecting the application. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, the petitioners have taken categorical stand in the reply to the petition that the tenancy between the parties is governed by a written agreement, where under a sum of Rs. 40,000/- has been deposited by the petitioners with the respondent-landlord as security deposit, which is liable to be refunded on the petitioners vacating the premises. Precisely, the case of the petitioners is that even if the petition filed by the respondent-landlord succeeds in terms of the agreement, the petitioners shall be entitled to retain the possession of the premises unless and until, the security amount is refunded. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this court, the agreement alleged to have been executed between the petitioners and the respondent-landlord setting out the terms and conditions of the tenancy is a relevant document and will help the court in deciding the controversy between the parties completely and effectually and therefore, the same deserves to be taken on record. However, the petitioners have not been able to show any relevancy of the partnership deed to the controversy involved and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal in respect thereof, deserves to be maintained. 8. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The agreement alleged to have been executed between the petitioners and the respondent-landlord is directed to be taken on record. 8. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The agreement alleged to have been executed between the petitioners and the respondent-landlord is directed to be taken on record. The order of the Rent Tribunal refusing to take other documents on record is maintained. No order as to costs.Petition Partly Allowed. *******