Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1306 (RAJ)

Sunil Kumar v. Jagdish Prasad

2017-05-22

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
JUDGMENT ORDER Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the judgment dated 10/4/2017 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed, the judgment dated 25/7/2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara has been set aside and matter has been remanded back to the Rent Tribunal directing the respondent to file his reply on the first date and, thereafter, directed the Rent Tribunal to decide the matter in accordance with law. 2. The petitioners filed a petition under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (''the Act, 2001'') against the respondent inter alia seeking revision of rent and eviction on account of default in payment of rent, non-user and subletting. 3. On notices being served, appearance was given by the respondent on 19/12/2012. An application was filed by the respondent that as the reply could not be filed within 45 days on account of illness of respondent Bansilal, one more opportunity be granted. The application was rejected by the Rent Tribunal on 25/7/2013 and arguments were heard on the petition and based on the averments made in the petition and affidavit, the rent was revised to Rs. 885.93p. and application for eviction was accepted. 4. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The Appellate Rent Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the reply was not filed within the time prescribed, still the reply was not closed as on two occasions the lawyers were on strike and on two occasions the Presiding Officer was on leave and as the order for eviction was passed immediately thereafter, the same was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Appellate Rent Tribunal was also of the opinion that the outer limit of 45 days prescribed by Section 15(3) of the Act was directory and not mandatory and consequently passed the order setting aside the judgment of Rent Tribunal and remanded back the matter for providing an opportunity to the tenant to file his reply on the first date fixed before the Rent Tribunal. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Appellate Rent Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the judgment and remanding back the matter to the Rent Tribunal. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Appellate Rent Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the judgment and remanding back the matter to the Rent Tribunal. It was submitted that admittedly the reply was not filed within 45 days and, therefore, the Rent Tribunal was left with no option but to close the reply and allow the petition for eviction filed by the petitioners and, therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the orders passed by the two Tribunals below. 7. A bare look at the judgment of Rent Tribunal indicates that the Rent Tribunal by order dated 25/7/2013, without adverting to the application filed by the tenant seeking extension of time, simply noticing that reply has not been filed within 45 days, rejected the application and thereafter went on to determine the revised rent and only in one line observed as under:- 8. The Rent Tribunal did not even care to indicate as to on which ground as set out in the provisions of Section 9 of the Act the eviction was being ordered. The petition was filed on the grounds of default in payment of rent, non-user and subletting. Even the satisfaction as required by the provisions of Section 9 regarding existence of ground was not recorded and, therefore, on face of it, passing of the order for eviction is bad in law and cannot be sustained on any count. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the said aspect of the matter was not adverted to by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Merely because Appellate Rent Tribunal did not advert to the requirements of provisions of Section 9 of the Act, cannot be a reason for this Court to ignore the blatant violation of provisions of law on the part of Rent Tribunal. 10. So far as the finding recorded by the Appellate Rent Tribunal regarding passing of the order closing reply of the respondent and not accepting the application for taking on record the reply is concerned, the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal is perfectly justified in the circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference. 11. 10. So far as the finding recorded by the Appellate Rent Tribunal regarding passing of the order closing reply of the respondent and not accepting the application for taking on record the reply is concerned, the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal is perfectly justified in the circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference. 11. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioners and the same is, therefore, dismissed.