Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1834 (RAJ)

Jahur Mohd. v. Smt. Shakuran @ Baya

2015-10-30

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 9.11.13 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City in Rent Case No.279/12, whereby an application preferred by the petitioners seeking leave to produce affidavits of the additional witnesses, stands rejected. 2. The respondents-landlord has preferred a petition seeking eviction of the petitioners-tenant from the rented premises, a shop, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity, subletting and the tenant acquiring vacant possession of the premises adequate for his requirement. 3. The suit is being contested by the petitioners by filing a reply thereto. In support of the case set out, the petitioners filed their own affidavits. The evidence of the respondents-landlord stands concluded and the matter was posted for petitioner's evidence. At this stage, the petitioners preferred an application seeking leave to produce the affidavits of two more witnesses, namely; Sher Mohd. and Mohd Khalid. 4. After due consideration, the application has been rejected by the court below by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in refusing to take the affidavits of additional witnesses sought to be produced on behalf of the petitioner on record. It is submitted that the availability of the alternative accommodation with the petitioners as suggested by the respondents belongs to the sons of the petitioner no.1, namely, Sher Mohd. and Mohd. Khalid and therefore, to prove this fact it is absolutely necessary that the affidavits of Sher Mohd and Mohd. Khalid sought to be produced by the petitioners, are taken on record. Learned counsel would submit that the principles of natural justice demands that the parties to the proceedings must be afforded fair opportunity and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal, rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners on the ground that the affidavits are sought to be produced at belated stage after lapse of about 5 years, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, as per provisions of Section 15 of the Act, the Tribunal is under an obligation to dispose of the proceedings within the stipulated time frame. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, as per provisions of Section 15 of the Act, the Tribunal is under an obligation to dispose of the proceedings within the stipulated time frame. As per the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 15, the tenant is under an obligation to file his reply, affidavits and documents after serving the copies of the same to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of service of notice. The rejoinder, if any, is required to be filed by the opposite party within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the reply. The Rent Tribunal is required to dispose of the petition within a period of 240 days from the date of service of notice on the tenant. 8. It is to be noticed that a reply to the petition along with affidavits was filed by the petitioners in the year 2008 and thus, the matter is pending consideration before the Rent Tribunal for last more than 5 years. It is a matter of record that the reply to the petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners herein in the month of November, 08. The facts regarding the availability of alternative accommodation with the petitioners was specifically set out in the petition. In para no.10 of the reply to the petition, it is specific stand taken by the petitioners that the business in the name of Kisan Tyre and Tube is run by the son of petitioner no.1, Sher Mohd. and thus, nothing prevented the petitioners from filing the affidavits of Sher Mohd. and Mohd. Khalid at the appropriate stage. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the only reason assigned by the petitioners justifying the filing of affidavits belatedly regarding his illiteracy cannot be considered to be a plausible reason so as to permit the petitioners to produce the additional affidavits at this belated stage ignoring the provisions of Section 15 of the Act , which mandates filing of the reply and affidavits within the stipulated period. 10. The legislature in its wisdom has incorporated the provisions providing for time limits for different stages of proceedings as also the maximum time to be taken for disposal of the proceedings before the Tribunal. 10. The legislature in its wisdom has incorporated the provisions providing for time limits for different stages of proceedings as also the maximum time to be taken for disposal of the proceedings before the Tribunal. The mandate of the legislature in providing for disposal of the matter within time frame shall stand defeated if such a negligence on the part of the party to the proceedings is condoned. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this court, the discretion exercised by the Rent Tribunal in refusing to take the affidavits sought to be produced by the petitioner on record does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional 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. No order as to costs. *******