Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1380 (RAJ)

Shantilal Agrawal v. Ashok Kumar Khatri

2015-07-23

VINEET KOTHARI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. The present misc. appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 CPC has been filed by the appellant/landlord, Shantilal S/o Sh. Bhagwan Das Agrawal aggrieved by the remand order dated 17.04.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Bikaner, sending the eviction suit for fresh trial to the learned trial court who had granted eviction decree in favour of landlord in Suit No.88/04- Shantilal v. Ashok Kumar on 11.08.2011. 2. Learned trial court had granted eviction decree on 11.08.2011 on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord while giving following findings in favour of appellant/plaintiff. 2. Learned trial court had granted eviction decree on 11.08.2011 on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord while giving following findings in favour of appellant/plaintiff. ^vfHkys[k ij tks ifjfLFkfr;ka U;k;ky; ds le{k vkbZ gS mldks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, gh oknh us ftjg ds nkSjku ;g fLFkfr U;k;ky; ds le{k j[kh gS fd ;fn nqdku [kkyh gks rks gh og O;kikj djsA oSdfYid :i ls Lo;a ds firk dh nqdku esa nqdku [kkyh ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa oknh }kjk O;olk; djus ek= ds vk/kkj ij gh esjs fouez er esa izfroknh fdjk;snkj dks ;g vf/kdkj ugha gS fd og Lo;a ds yach vof/k ds dCts dks laj{k.k iznku djus gsrq oknh edku ekfyd dks fdlh izdkj Lo;a dh vko';drk ds fy, firk dh nqdku esa gh Lo;a dks ,MtLV o vH;Lr djus gsrq funsZf'kr djsA oknh us l'kiFk lk{; ds nkSjku Lo;a dh vk; dk tfj;k c<+kus ds fy;s fookfnr nqdku Lo;a dh nqdku crk cktkj esa gksuh o blh esa cSBdj O;olk; djus ds fy;s vkenuh c<+kus gsrq thou;kiu gsrq mDr nqdku dh vko';drk ntZ dh gS tks esjs fouez er esa mijksDr leLr rF; lk{; ls futh] ln~Hkkfod o rdZlaxr gSA fof/kd :i ls lacaf/kr Lokeh gh Lo;a dh vko';drkvksa dk loksZRre fu.kkZ;d gksrk gS rFkk U;k;ky; ;k fdjk;snkj nqdku ekfyd dks ;g dgdj funsZf'kr ugha gksrk gS rFkk U;k;ky; ;k fdjk;snkj nqdku ekfyd dks ;g dgdj funsZf'kr ugha dj ldrs fd bl izdkj ls ugha vU; izdkj ls Lo;a dh vko';drkvksa dh iwfrZ dj ysaA c<+rh egaxkbZ ifjokj dh t:jr o nykyh ds dk;Z ds LFkku ij Lo;a ds LokfeRo dh nqdku esa O;kikj djus dh tks vko';drk U;k;ky; ds le{k oknh us nf'kZr dh gS mldk izfroknh dh lk{; ls dgha [k.Mu ugha gksrk gSA QM+cktkj fLFkr Lo;a ds firk dh nqdku esa oSdfYid :i ls O;olk; djus ls o QM+cktkj esa gh nykyh dk dk;Z djuk ek= ls gh oknh Lo;a ds dCts vf/kdkjh dh nqdku esa O;kikj djus ls fugZfjr ugha gks tkrk gSA ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd izfroknh i{k ds ikl oknh ifjokj dh mDr fookfnr nqdku lu~ 1972 ls yxHkx 15 o"kZ iwoZ ls gksuk U;k;ky; ds le{k i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ifjyf{kr gksrk gSA vr% yxHkx ipkl o"kZ dh vof/k esa izfroknh ds }kjk dksbZ fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj ;k Lo;a ds ifjlj dh ryk'kh vius O;olk; ds fy;s dh gks ,slk dksbZ ln~Hkkfod iz;kl fd;k tkuk dgha Hkh izfroknh dh lk{; ls U;k;ky; ds le{k izdV ugha fd;k x;k gSA tcfd oknh i{k dh lk{; o iwoZ nkos ds vihyh; fu.kZ; ls fookfnr nqdku esa oknh i{k dk crkSj ekfyd gksuk o fof/kd izfdz;k viuk dj mDr nqdku d fu"dklu gsrq 1972 ls gh oknh i{k dk iz;kljr gksuk vfHkys[k ij gSA orZeku esa gLrxr okn ds tfj;s oknh dh Lo;a dh futh rdZlaxr o ;qfDr;qDr vko';drk c<+rh egaxkbZ o ifjokj dh t:jr ds fglkc ls U;k;ky; ds le{k vkbZ gSA vr% izfroknh vf/koDrk }kjk dh xbZ ;g ftjg dh oknh dk ,d iq= ';keyky dksVk esa ukSdjh dj jgk gS rks Hkh oknh dh Lo;a dh vko';drkvksa dh iwfrZ ,oa vk; dk tfj;k c<+kus ds lanHkZ esa mDrkuqlkj nqdku esa dkjksckj djus ls fu"ksf/kr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA izdj.k esa vf/koDrk izfroknh }kjk tks fofo/k U;kf;d n`"VkUr izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa mlesa n`"VkUr 2011¼3½ vkj0,y0MCyw0 ist 1873 jktLFkku o MCY;w0,y0lh0 2003¼1½ ist 687 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; o U;kf;d n`"VkUr ,u0 bZ'ojh cuke LojkT; y{eh ¼y{eh ts0½ 2009¼9½ lqizhe dksVZ dslst ist 678( 2009¼8½ lqizhe dksVZ dslst ist 718 ,oa ,e0,l0 tkfgn cuke ds0 jk?kou] 1999¼1½ lqizhe dksVZ dslsl ist 439( esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd edku ekfyd dh bPNk gh ek= i;kZIr ugha gS mlesa t:jr dk rRo Hkh gksuk pkfg, o ,slh vko';drk ;qfDr;qDr o rdZ laxr gksuh pkfg, ,oa x`g Lokeh dks ;g Hkj n'kkZ;k pkfg, fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13¼1½¼,p½ ds rgr mls ifjlj dh ;FkkZFk esa vko';drk gSA gLrxr izdj.k esa Hkh mijksDr fo'ys"k.k ds izdk'k esa oknh us fookfnr ifjlj dh rdZlaxr ,oa ;qfDr;qDr ;FkkZFk esa vko';drk dks esjs fouez er es fl) dj fn;k gSA izfroknh }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUr 1997¼7½ lqizhe dksVZ dslst ist 275 esa tgka rd ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g fof/kd fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd dsoy firk ds lkFk ugha jgus dh bPNk ds vk/kkj ij gh fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj dh vko';drk dk vk/kkj ugha gSA mDr izdj.k ds rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ka gLrxr izdj.k esa esjs fouez er esa fHkUu jgha gS vr% mDr izdj.k esa izfrikfnr rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ka gLrxr izdj.k ls fHkUu gksus ls pLik gksus ;ksX; ugha gSA oknh }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUr 2008¼1½ lh0lh0lh0 ist 433 lqizhe dksVZ] esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us firk ds lkFk fctuSl ugha dj LorU= O;olk; ds fy;s iq= dh vko';drk dks ln~Hkkfod vo/kkfjr fd;k gSA gLrxr izdj.k esa oknh ds ikl fookfnr ifjlj gh ,d ek= mlds iw.kZ; vUu; vf/kdkj dk gS ftlesa fd mlus nykyh ds O;kikj ds vykok cSBdj i`Fkd ls O;olk; djus dh Lo;a dh rdZlaxr o ln~Hkkoh vko';drk lkfcr dh gq, Hkh esjs fouez er esa oknh dks mlds LokfeRo ds ifjlj esa O;olk; ugha djus o mlh iwoZ ls py jgh O;oLFkk ds vuq:i gh dk;Z djus gsrq U;k;ky; ;k fdjk;snkj dks funsZf'kr djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA mn; 'kadj mik/;k; o vU; cuke uohu egs'ojh] 2010¼3½ lh0lh0lh0 ist 138 lqizhe dksVZ] esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ;gh ekxZn'kZu iznku fd;k x;k gSA oknh }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUr 2003 ,0vkb0vkj0 lqizhe dksVZ 2077 ls Hkh ;gh fof/kd fLFkfr U;k;ky; ds le{k vkbZ gS fd nqdku ekfyd mlh le; fu"dklu dh fMdzh izkIr djus ds fy, gdnkj ugha gS] tcfd mldh Lo;a dh nqdku tks fd mlds vuU; dCts esa mlds ikl gks] la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj ds ifjlj dks vuU; :i ls fdlh ,d ifjokj tu ds dCts vf/kdkj dk ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA tc nqdku ekfyd ds ikl Lo;a ds vuU; dCts o vf/kdkj dh nqdku gks o mls Lo;a dk O;olk; 'kq: djuk gks rks mls la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj dh nqdku esa gh O;olk; djus ds fy;s ck/; ugha fd;k tk ldrkA tks fd gLrxr izjd.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vuqdwy gksus ls esjs fouez er esa mDr U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa dk voyac fy;k tkuk fof/k lEer gSA oknh }kjk is'k U;kf;d n`"VkUr pUnwth cuke Lo0 dkywjke okfjlku] 2011¼1½ lh0Mh0vkj0 ist 144 jktLFkku] esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ekxZn'kZu iznku fd;k gS fd Hkw&Lokeh viuh bPNk ds vuqlkj rFkk vko';drk larq"V djus gsrq lcls vPNs ifjlj dks pquus dk O;kid vf/kdkj j[krk gS bl ckjs esa fdjk;snkj dqN ugha dg ldrkA vr% gLrxr izdj.k esa mHk; i{kksa dh vksj ls tks ekSf[kd nLrkosth lk{; o le; le; ij izfrikfnr gq, U;kf;d n`"VkUr ls tks fof/kd fLFkfr izdj.k esa fookfnr ifjlj dh ln~Hkkfod] rdZlaxr o futh vko';drk ds lanHkZ esa i=koyh ij izLrqr vkbZ gS] mlds fo'ys"k.k ls fdjk;snkj ds yacs le; ds dCts ds laj{k.k gsrq esjs fouez er esa mDr vko';drk dh iwfrZ gsrq x`gLokeh@nqdku Lokeh dks Lo;a ds firk dh nqdku esa gh vH;Lr ;k ,MtLV djus laca/kh izfroknh dk funsZ'k izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds izdk'k esa fof/k lEer ugha gSA vr% izdj.k esa mijksDr lexz fo'ys"k.k ds izdk'k esa oknh fookfnr fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj ds lanHkZ esa ln~Hkkfod rdZlaxr o ;qfDr;qdr vko';drk iw.kZ :i ls fl) djus esa lQy jgk gSA vr% mijksDr lexz fo'ys"k.k ds izdk'k esa fook|d la[;k nks oknh ds i{k esa r; fd;k tkrk gSA* 3. The learned first appellate court remanded the matter back to the trial court by impugned order dated 17.04.2015 allowing two applications filed by the defendant/tenant under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC and under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. The reasons assigned by the learned appellate court of Addl. District Judge No.1, Bikaner, while remanding the matter back to the trial court are also quoted herein below for ready reference:- ^fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us mijksDr nksuksa gh rudh;kr jsLiksMsaV@oknh ds i{k esa r; dh gS rFkk vihykFkhZ@izfroknh ds fo:) r; dh gSA pwafd vihykFkhZ@izfroknh }kjk is'k nksuksa vkosnu vkns'k 41 fu;e 27 lifBr /kkjk 151 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] ,oa vkns'k 6 fu;e 17 lifBr /kkjk 151 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] Lohdkj fd;s tk pqds gSa ftlds rgr futh ,oa ln~Hkkfod vko';drk ds mijksDr nLrkost tks fjdkMZ ij fy, x, gSa mlds vuqlkj tks la'kks/ku tokcnkok esa Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS] mlds vk/kkj ij nksuksa gh rudh;kr dks iqu% oknh dks vius ijpwu ds O;kikj ds fy, nqdku dh ;qfDr;qDr ln~Hkkoh vko';drk gS ;k ugha] D;k rqyukRed dfBukbZ ds vk/kkj ij oknh nqdku fjDr djkus dk vf/kdkjh gSA ;g nksuksa gh rudh;kr mijksDr la'kks/ku vkSj fjdkMZ ij fy, x, nLrkost ds vk/kkj ij iqu% fu.khZr djuk ;g vnkyr vko';d le>rh gSA vr% fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk rudh la0 nks vkSj pkj ds laca/k esa fudkys x, fu"d"kZ dks vikLr tkrk gSA* 4. Mr. Narendra Thanvi, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that a well reasoned decree finding the personal, bona fide and reasonable necessity of the landlord and giving that eviction decree on that, the same has been set aside by the learned lower appellate court on wholly flimsy grounds namely that the document was sought to be produced by the defendant/tenant, which prima-facie indicated that a rented out shop was already available with the landlord and another shop in the name of plaintiff's father allotted in the Krishi Mandi Yard, in which the plaintiff could have a share and, therefore, he could satisfy his such need for the suit shop with the said alternative accommodation available to him and these documents found relevant, deserves to be considered by the trial court and, therefore, remand was made by the learned lower appellate court below. 5. 5. He submitted that firstly, the defendant/tenant with his due diligence could very well obtain these documents during the trial itself, however, as an afterthought these documents were produced at the appellate stage, and relying upon such documents the suit could not be have been remanded back to the learned trial court for holding a fresh trial. Secondly, neither the rented accommodation possessed by the landlord, nor the alleged shop in the name of plaintiff's father can sufficiently dispel the bona fide need of the plaintiff/appellant, which was in his own ownership, which he wanted to have for his own use or business and sought eviction of the defendant/tenant on the ground of personal and bona fide need, which was duly established and these defences were already considered by the learned trial court; and since the settled legal position is that bona fide need on the date of filing of the suit is to be ascertained, which in the instant case, was duly established by the plaintiff. He, therefore, argued that decree of eviction could not have been set aside by the learned appellate court on these grounds and thus the remand order of the appellate court deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. V.L. Thanvi, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant supported the impugned remand order and urged that issues of bona fide need, and comparative hardship deserve to be decided again afresh by the learned trial court in pursuance to the remand order; and the learned lower appellate has granted two months' time to the trial court to decide the relevant issue on the basis of fresh evidence brought on record before the appellate court. He, therefore, submitted that the remand of suit is justified and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, and upon perusal of the orders of the courts below, this Court is satisfied that the appellate court has remanded the case back to the trial court on irrelevant consideration. The legal position in this regard is that the bona fide and personal necessity is to be seen on the date of filing of suit, and that was duly established by the landlord/plaintiff in the present suit and by detailed and well reasoned findings considering the defence of the tenant, the eviction decree was given by the learned trial court. The legal position in this regard is that the bona fide and personal necessity is to be seen on the date of filing of suit, and that was duly established by the landlord/plaintiff in the present suit and by detailed and well reasoned findings considering the defence of the tenant, the eviction decree was given by the learned trial court. The additional evidence sought to be produced by the defendant at the appellate stage was an evidence of the contemporary period which was duly available during the trial itself and these defences were considered by the learned trial court. For the reasons best known to the defendant/tenant, he did not produce these documentary evidence before the learned trial court; and merely because such documents are produced before the learned appellate court later on and they are found to be relevant, the remand of trial cannot be made by the appellate court. 8. The power to set aside the decree and remand with the appellate court is, of course there but that has to be exercised with great caution and reasonable amount of circumspection. It is well known that upon remand, even if a stipulated time frame is given by the higher courts, it usually takes much longer for the lower courts to decide the issues on which such remand has been made by the higher courts. Rent control and eviction matters already bear a infamy of delayed trials in our court system. The Court dockets are clogged with large number of cases specially in the lower courts. In such circumstances, assuming for arguments' sake that the additional evidence brought before the appellate court was found to be relevant, though in the present case this Court does not find any such ground, because the bona fide need on the date of filing of the suit is not affected by these documents, even then, the appellate court itself could have given an opportunity to the parties to prove that evidence in accordance with law and decide on merits the relevant issues itself. In the present case, the impugned remand order appears to be a remand merely on askance of the defendant/tenant making the trial a shuttlecock. 9. In the background of delays in trial, the greater amount of restraint is required to be exercised by the appellate courts while remanding the case back to the trial courts. In the present case, the impugned remand order appears to be a remand merely on askance of the defendant/tenant making the trial a shuttlecock. 9. In the background of delays in trial, the greater amount of restraint is required to be exercised by the appellate courts while remanding the case back to the trial courts. It has obviously not been followed in the present case, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the remand order in the present case cannot be sustained and the present appeal of the appellant/plaintiff deserves to be allowed, the same is accordingly allowed and setting aside the impugned order dated 17.04.2015, the learned appellate court of Additional District Judge No.1, Bikaner, is directed to decide the appeal of the defendant/tenant on merits within a period of six months from today. The applications of the defendant/tenant under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC and under Order 6, Rule 17 shall be treated as rejected and the appellate court shall decide the appeal on merits. The parties are accordingly directed to remain present before the lower appellate court on 11.08.2015 in the first instance. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the appellate court below forthwith. Appeal allowed.