Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2098 (RAJ)

Navdurga Trading Company v. Nazma Begum

2015-12-16

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This writ petition is directed against order dated 26.9.15 of the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner for framing of additional issue in view of amendment of the pleadings, stands rejected. 2. The respondents preferred a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from a commercial premises, a shop, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity. The petition is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. 3. The petitioner preferred an application seeking leave to amend the reply stating that during the pendency of the petition, the respondents have let out two shops owned by them, which shows that the requirement of the premises as pleaded is not bona fide. The application preferred seeking amendment of the reply was allowed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 30.7.15. After amendment being allowed as aforesaid, the petitioner preferred an application for framing an issue in respect of the premises let out by the respondents during the pendency of the petition. The application stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal in defiance of provisions of Order 14, Rule 5 CPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submitted that for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute, it is absolutely necessary that the issues are framed by the Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel would submit that in view of the additional averments incorporated in the reply, it is absolutely necessary to frame the issues in terms that since the respondents have let out the vacant shops during the pendency of the petition, the requirement of the premises as pleaded by them is not bona fide. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 6. It is to be noticed that the Rent Tribunal has not framed the issues in the matter as yet and therefore, the question of additional issues being framed does not arise. In this view of the matter, the application preferred by the petitioner in terms of provisions of Order 14, Rule 5 CPC for framing the additional issue was liable to be rejected on this count alone. 7. In this view of the matter, the application preferred by the petitioner in terms of provisions of Order 14, Rule 5 CPC for framing the additional issue was liable to be rejected on this count alone. 7. This court had an occasion to deal with the question with regard to framing of the issues in the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, in the matter of "Central Academy Educational Society v. Pratap Commercial Co. Pvt. Limited", RLW 2010(2) (Raj.) 1327, wherein the court observed: "15. Thus, it can be safely concluded that by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 21, the Rent Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down under the CPC, 1908 but the same does not restrict the authority of the tribunal to adopt the procedure and apply the principle underlying the various provisions of CPC, 1908 if for finding out the truth and impart the justice between the parties, it is considered necessary to adopt such procedure. 16. Indisputably, the issues arises when a material proposition of facts or law is affirmed by one party and denied by other. The object of any issue is to tie down the evidence, arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt on what the dispute is. The correct decision of the civil lis largely depends on correct framing of the issues, correctly determining the real points in controversy which need to be decided.(vide Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Buhania, AIR 2001 SC 490 .) It is true that the eviction of a tenant in terms of the provisions of Section 9 can be sought for only on the grounds specified but then, the existence of the ground necessarily depends upon the basic facts being proved. Therefore, if there is difference between the parties on the material question of law and facts, then, in civil proceedings for just decision of the matter, it is always advisable to frame the issues/points of determination. 17. Therefore, if there is difference between the parties on the material question of law and facts, then, in civil proceedings for just decision of the matter, it is always advisable to frame the issues/points of determination. 17. It is true that the provisions of the Act does not mandate framing the issues or points of determination but then, if after due consideration of the matter the tribunal arrives at the conclusion that for a right decision of the matter, so as to impart justice between the parties, it is necessary to spell out the points of determination specifically and unambiguously then it is not precluded from framing of issues/points of determination and while taking such exercise, the tribunal can always apply the procedure and principles underlying Order 14 of the CPC. However, necessity of framing the issues has to be determined by the court taking into account the pleadings of the parties in each case. Thus, in considered opinion of this court, the tribunal could not have rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for framing the issues by simply saying that it will not be appropriate to frame the issues in light of the Rules. Needless to say that any application preferred by the parties to the proceedings has to be dealt with by the tribunal in a just reasonable manner and the same should not be rejected in a cursory manner without touching the question raised, by a non speaking order. 18. The provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 15 providing for summary inquiry to be made by the tribunal which is deemed necessary for decision of the petition also does not preclude the tribunal from framing the points of determinations and proceed with the inquiry accordingly. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that since the procedure to be adopted by the tribunal while deciding the petition is summary procedure therefore, the tribunal cannot frame the issues as in case of the trial of regular suit, is also devoid of any merit." (emphasis added) 8. Adverting to the facts of the present case, indisputably, the petition seeking eviction has been filed by the respondents on the ground of reasonable & bona fide necessity. Adverting to the facts of the present case, indisputably, the petition seeking eviction has been filed by the respondents on the ground of reasonable & bona fide necessity. Obviously, while deciding the issue with regard to reasonable and bona fide necessity of the premises as pleaded by the respondents, the matter with regard to the premises, if any, let out by the respondents during the pendency of the petition, shall also be considered by the Rent Tribunal. It is to be noticed that the Rent Tribunal has not concluded that no points of determination are required to be framed in the matter rather, it is observed that for the present there is no requirement to frame issues. Needless to say that if it is considered necessary, the Rent Tribunal shall frame the issues keeping in view the law laid down by this court in Central Academy's case (supra). 9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in limine with the observations as above. Petition dismissed.