Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2051 (RAJ)

Chandra Kumar Dammani v. Shiv Shanker

2015-12-09

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against the order dated 1.10.15 of the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner in Rent Case No.76/10, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ( for short "the Act"), seeking directions to the Commissioner, Income Tax, Bikaner, to produce the Income Tax Returns filed by the respondent's son Ashwini Kumar, for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2013-14, stands rejected. 2. The respondent has filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from a commercial premises on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement for his son Ashwini Kumar, which is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. 3. During the pendency of the petition, on 21.5.15, the petitioner preferred an application for summoning the Income Tax Returns for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2013-14 filed by the respondent's son Ashwini Kumar from the Commissioner, Income Tax, Bikaner. After due consideration, the Tribunal arrived at the finding that the Income Tax Returns are not relevant for adjudication of the issues involved in the petition. Accordingly, the application was rejected vide order dated 21.5.15. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred yet another application seeking directions to the Commissioner, Income Tax, Bikaner to produce the Income Tax Returns filed by the respondent's son Ashwini Kumar, for the aforesaid period. The application has been rejected by the Tribunal by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Rent Tribunal has erred in observing that merely filing of the Income Tax Return does not indicate that Ashwini Kumar is gainfully employed. Learned counsel submitted that Ashwini Kumar had stated blatant lie on oath in taking the stand that he has not filed Income Tax Return since 2009-10. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, Ashwini Kumar has filed the returns for assessment year 2009-10 onwards, which are available with the Department of Income Tax. Learned counsel submitted that for just and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the petition, it is absolutely necessary to summon the Income Tax Returns filed by the respondent's son Ashwini Kumar. 5. Learned counsel submitted that for just and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the petition, it is absolutely necessary to summon the Income Tax Returns filed by the respondent's son Ashwini Kumar. 5. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the order impugned passed by the Tribunal after due consideration of the relevant aspects in their entirety and objectivity does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality so as to warrant interference by this court. Learned counsel submitted that the application preferred by the petitioner having been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 21.5.15, the fresh application preferred in this regard, was not maintainable. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. It is to be noticed that the application preferred by the petitioner for summoning the Income Tax Returns for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2013-14 was rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 21.5.15, categorically holding that the said documents are not relevant for adjudication of the issues involved in the petition, which has attained finality and thus, the fresh application preferred by the petitioner with the identical prayer was liable to be rejected on this count alone. In any case, the petition is filed by the respondent-landlord seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises for his son, who intends to start business of electronic goods therein to improve his financial condition and therefore, the Income Tax Returns, if any, filed by the respondent's son for the aforesaid period cannot be said to be relevant for the adjudication of the issues involved in the petition. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal, rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******