Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 635 (RAJ)

Zafar Khan v. Haji Mustaq Ahmed

2015-03-13

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.3.2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal, whereby the Rent Tribunal has accepted the application filed by the respondent and has directed to supply legible copies to the petitioner on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-. 2. A petition seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant was filed by the respondent. 3. An application was filed by the petitioner complaining about the copies of the documents being not legible. By order dated 24.5.2008, the Tribunal directed supply of legible copies within a period of seven days. When within a period of seven days, the legible copies were not supplied, by order dated 31.5.2008, the Tribunal directed removal of documents (photographs) from the record. Where after, an application dated 18.9.2008 was filed by the respondent seeking recall of the order dated 31.5.2008, which application was also dismissed on 21.2.2009. 4. Another application was filed on 16.4.2009, which was allowed by order dated 15.3.2011. 5. During the pendency of the petition, on 12.12.2012, the cost as imposed by order dated 15.3.2011 has accepted by learned counsel for the petitioner at the trial court, however, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the cost has subsequently been deposited back with the Tribunal. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the application was dismissed on 21.2.2009, the Tribunal could not have accepted the subsequent application. It is further submitted that the order dated 15.3.2011 was passed on the assumption that the documents have been supplied to the petitioner, which is also factually incorrect and therefore, also the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Tribunal has passed the order under Section 21 of the Act only with a view to comply with the principles of natural justice and has granted opportunity to the petitioner to file additional reply etc. It is further submitted that once the cost has been accepted, the petitioner has lost right to question the validity of the order dated 15.3.2011, the alleged redeposit of cost is of no consequence. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. It is further submitted that once the cost has been accepted, the petitioner has lost right to question the validity of the order dated 15.3.2011, the alleged redeposit of cost is of no consequence. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. From the material available on record, it is apparent that the grievance raised by the petitioner pertains to illegible copies of the photographs supplied along with the copy of the petition, it is not the case of the parties that the photographs filed with the petition were illegible. The trial court passed an order for supply of the legible copies. The respondent failed to comply with the direction which lead to the Tribunal directing removal of the photographs from the petition itself and subsequently, application seeking recall of the order was also dismissed by the Tribunal. 10. The sequence of events merely indicate the causal attitude of the respondent, who as landlord-petitioner before the Tribunal was expected to be much vigilant and should have complied with the directions issued by the Tribunal in its letter and spirit and within the time framed indicated by the Tribunal. However, the respondent-plaintiff chose to treat the litigation apparently as a luxury. 11. However, once the order dated 15.3.2011 has been passed by the Tribunal, whereby the direction has been issued for supply of the copies of the photographs and the cost of Rs. 1,000/- has been imposed and during the pendency of this petition, not only that the copies of the photographs have been supplied to the petitioner even the cost was also accepted by learned counsel for the petitioner (though it is claimed that the amount of cost has been redeposited by the petitioner), no interference is called for in the order impugned passed by the Tribunal so as to put the clock back, as there is no interim order passed by this Court during the pendency of this writ petition, which remains pending since the year 2011. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.