Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 537 (RAJ)

Hansa Udyog v. Nand Lal

2016-04-18

SANGEET LODHA

body2016
JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against order dated 19.1.16 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Rent Appeal No.31/15, whereby the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for disposal of the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, prior to hearing of the appeal, stands rejected. 2. The relevant facts are that the respondent-landlord preferred a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the rented premises, before the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner filed an application for taking the documents on record, which was rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 21.11.14. Aggrieved thereby, a writ petition preferred by the petitioner before this court was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to question the legality of the said order passed by the Rent Tribunal, in appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, if the occasion arises. The petition preferred by the respondent seeking eviction of the petitioner, has been allowed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 7.4.15. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, wherein the legality of order dated 21.11.14 passed by the Rent Tribunal as aforesaid, is also questioned. At the same time, the petitioner has preferred an application under Section 19 (9) of the Rent Control Act, 2001 read with Order 41, Rule 27 for taking the documents on record. The petitioner made a prayer for deciding the application prior to hearing of the appeal, which stands rejected by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the legality of order dated 21.11.14 was questioned by the petitioner by way of a writ petition before this court wherein, liberty was extended to him to question the legality thereof, in the appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that the documents sought to be brought on record go to the root of the matter and therefore, the application preferred by the petitioner for taking the documents on record, needs to be decided by the Appellate Rent Tribunal prior to hearing of the appeal. Learned counsel would submit that the order impugned passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal is ex facie contrary to law and therefore, deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel would submit that the order impugned passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal is ex facie contrary to law and therefore, deserves to be set aside. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this court in the matter of "Babu Khan v. Girdhari Lal", 2013(2) DNJ (Raj.), 891. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 5. Indisputably, the application preferred by the petitioner for taking the documents on record, was rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 21.11.14 and the legality thereof, has been questioned by the petitioner in the appeal preferred before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. It goes without saying that the legality of the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, rejecting the application, shall be considered by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, at the time of hearing of the appeal. 6. Coming to the application preferred by the petitioner for taking the documents on record before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, obviously, for arriving at the conclusion as to whether the documents are necessary to be taken on record, the matter needs to be examined by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on merits. Therefore, the judicial discretion exercised by the Appellate Court in holding that it would be appropriate to consider the application for taking additional evidence on record, at the time of the hearing of the appeal, cannot be faulted with. It is to be noticed that Order 41, Rule 27 , does not mandate that application preferred seeking leave to produce additional evidence should be decided at first before the hearing of the appeal. 7. Thus, no case for interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. 8. In Babu Khan's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, was decided by the Appellate Court before the hearing of the appeal and the legality of the order was questioned before this court on the ground that the Appellate Court ought to have decided the application at the final disposal of the appeal. The petition was dismissed by this court observing that the discretion exercised by the court below does not require interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed by this court observing that the discretion exercised by the court below does not require interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. In the said case, it is nowhere laid down by the court that an application under Order 41, Rule 27 must be decided by the Appellate Court prior to hearing of the appeal. Thus, the said decision of this court also does not help the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. 9. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.