Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1086 (RAJ)

RAM PYARI v. SHANTI KUMAWAT

2015-05-18

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2015
ORDER Since these two writ petitions arise out of one and same eviction proceedings between the same parties, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Both these writ petitions have been filed by the landlord challenging order dated 17.04.2008 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar(for short 'the Rent Tribunal') in Application No. 83/2006 whereby three different applications filed by her in the aforementioned eviction petition have been dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under Sections 6, 9 and 10 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001(for short 'the Act') stating therein that husband of the petitioner(now died) let out a room and kitchen to respondent tenant in the year 1975 @ Rs. 100/- per month. Monthly rent was increased from time to time and at the time of filing eviction petition, payable rent was Rs. 650/- per month. Husband of the petitioner, Late Shri Mohal Lal, executed a Will in favour of the petitioner on 11.11.2002 for the entire property including the rented portion. Respondent-tenant defaulted in paying the rent. As such, the petitioner prayed for eviction of the Respondent-tenant, recovery of increased rent from 03.12.2004 to 03.08.2006 along with interest and re-determination of rent. 4. Respondent-tenant filed reply to the petition for eviction and denied averments made therein. She denied the fact of execution of Will in favour of the petitioner. During pendency of the eviction petition, an application was filed by the petitioner on 21.12.2006 for taking on record additional evidence through affidavits with regard to the Will, which was executed by Mohal Lal in favour of the petitioner and with regard to tenant of non-petitioner. Respondent-tenant filed reply to said application and contended that said affidavits cannot be taken on record as additional evidence after filing of written statement. The petitioner-landlord on the same day, i.e., 21.12.2006, filed another application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment in the eviction petition and prayed that amendment in Para 10.7 and 10.8 of the eviction petition be permitted to be made. This application was also contested by Respondent-tenant contending that by way of proposed amendment, the petitioner wants to change entire case. 5. This application was also contested by Respondent-tenant contending that by way of proposed amendment, the petitioner wants to change entire case. 5. During pendency of aforesaid applications filed by the petitioner, one more application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by her on 16.07.2007 seeking slight amendment in application dated 21.12.2006 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the main eviction petition. That application was also contested by Respondent-tenant denying the averments made in that application. 6. The Rent Tribunal, after considering the material on record, vide two separate orders dated 17.04.02008 dismissed all the three applications filed by the petitioner-landlord. Hence, these two writ petitions by the petitioner-landlord. 7. Mr. D.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Rent Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that Respondent-tenant suppressed the material fact and indirectly admitted the notice sent by the petitioner. The Rent Tribunal also erred in recording finding that the affidavits for additional evidence were not filed with the main eviction petition, but they were filed later on. The petitioner after having knowledge from the reply of the Respondent No. 1 that she had disputed the Will and claimed herself to be landlord, filed application for additional evidence, which was necessary in the present case. Since Respondent-tenant suppressed the fact of notice being served on her, amendments in the main eviction petition were necessary. The applications were filed by the petitioner before recording of evidence of the parties in the case. In such circumstances, amendment would not have caused any prejudice to the other party. If the amendment is allowed, Respondent-tenant would also have the right to rebut the same. The amendment is very much necessary to decide the title over the disputed property. The petitioner has produced affidavits of independent persons and from their affidavits, it is clear that the property in dispute came in the name of the petitioner by way of Will and Respondent No. 1 was tenant of Late Shri Mohan Lal and after his death, the petitioner is landlord, having legal right over the property in dispute. 8. Mr. Shailesh Sharma, learned counsel for Respondent has opposed the writ petitions and submitted that additional evidence through affidavits cannot be allowed to be adduced because those affidavits ought to have been filed along with the main eviction petition. 8. Mr. Shailesh Sharma, learned counsel for Respondent has opposed the writ petitions and submitted that additional evidence through affidavits cannot be allowed to be adduced because those affidavits ought to have been filed along with the main eviction petition. Therefore, the Rent Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner for adducing additional evidence through affidavits. Besides, those affidavits have also been filed by the petitioner with huge delay. With regard to other applications filed by the petitioner, learned counsel for Respondent has submitted that the amendment so proposed would have changed the entire nature of the eviction petition, therefore, the same cannot be allowed and the Rent Tribunal has rightly dismissed those applications too. There is no merit in these writ petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. Indisputably, proceedings before the Rent Tribunal and Rent Appellate Tribunal, in view of the provisions contained in the Act, are summary in nature. Section 21 of the Act grants discretion to the Rent Tribunal or Rent Appellate Tribunal to regulate their procedure in accordance with principles of natural justice, not being bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, for the purpose of discharge their functions; certain specified powers, which are vested in the Civil Court, have also been vested in the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal. 11. Petition filed before the Rent Tribunal for eviction under Section 9 of the Act is not a regular civil suit and therefore, provisions of amendment contained in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are not applicable to those proceedings. In the specific list of provisions of CPC, which have been applied to proceedings before the Rent Tribunal, the power of amendment of pleadings has not been included. Provisions of CPC, which have been separately included are those with regard to summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; requiring the discovery and production of documents; reviewing its decision; issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; dismissing petition for default or deciding it ex-parte; setting aside any order of dismissal of any petition for default or any order passed by it ex-parte; bringing legal representatives on record and any other matter as may be prescribed. The Act thus does not envisage to apply all other provisions of CPC before the Rent Tribunal or Rent Appellate Tribunal. These Tribunals are not required to frame issues and to consider the application for amendment of the pleadings. Although, of course, they can formulate the points for determination to facilitate the framing of their judgments and can take on record any subsequent development, which may have bearing on the matter under their consideration by way of additional affidavit. 12. Rent Tribunal has dismissed the application of the petitioner for producing additional evidence through affidavits of witnesses observing that those affidavits should have been submitted by the petitioner along with the main eviction petition. In the present case, eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that property in question was let out to Respondent No. 1 by her husband and after death of her husband, the petitioner has acquired ownership rights of the entire property including rented property on the basis of Will executed by her husband in her favour. But Respondent No. 1, in her reply to eviction petition, has disputed the fact of execution of Will by husband of the petitioner in her favour and contended that the said Will is forged and fabricated one. When the fact of execution of Will in petitioner's favour by her husband has been for the first time disputed by Respondent-tenant by raising the same in the reply to eviction petition, then there was no occasion for the petitioner to file affidavits of aforesaid witnesses to that effect in advance at the time of filing of eviction petition because she was not knowing that such an objection will be taken by the tenant in her reply. Besides, the additional evidence in the present case would facilitate effective decision of the case and Respondent-tenant would also have an opportunity to rebut those affidavits and produce her witnesses in rebuttal thereof. Inconvenience caused to the respondent due to delay in producing the same can be compensated by way of costs. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Rent Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the application of the petitioner for producing additional evidence in the matter. 13. Inconvenience caused to the respondent due to delay in producing the same can be compensated by way of costs. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Rent Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the application of the petitioner for producing additional evidence in the matter. 13. As regard dismissal of other two applications of the petitioner seeking amendment, this Court is of the opinion that when the petitioner is allowed to adduce additional evidence, those new facts based on subsequent developments stand incorporated in the additional affidavits. Impugned order passed by the Rent Tribunal to that extent cannot be faulted with. 14. In the result, Writ Petition No. 4981/2008 is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to file rejoinder as also place on record three affidavits of Jitendra Kumar, Notary Public, Court Premises, Alwar; Rajendra S/o. Laxman Singh and Santaram S/o. Jagram subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to Respondent No. 1tenant. The petitioner shall produce aforesaid witnesses on the next date before the Rent Tribunal or any other date that may be fixed by the Rent Tribunal within one month thereafter, for cross-examination by Respondent No. 1-tenant. Respondent No. 1 would also be at liberty to produce not more than two witnesses along with their affidavits in rebuttal, who shall likewise be permitted by the Rent Tribunal to be cross-examined by the petitioner within one month thereafter. However, the Rent Tribunal shall expedite the decision of main eviction petition. 15. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been permitted by this Court to file rejoinder incorporating the facts therein, there is no necessity for passing any order in Writ Petition No. 5183/2008 and the same stands dismissed accordingly.