Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1767 (RAJ)

Shanti Devi v. Ramji Lal

2017-08-08

ALOK SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. Under challenge is the order dated 19-12-2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') dismissing the petitioners-non-applicants' (hereinafter 'the non-applicants') application under Order 11, Rule 12 & 14 and section 30(b) CPC read with Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001'). 2. The facts of the case are that respondent-applicant (hereinafter 'the applicant'), claiming to be the tenant of the non-applicants purportedly his landlords, filed a suit for permanent injunction resorting to Section 18 of the Act of 2001 stating that he was a duly inducted tenant of the non-applicants. It was stated that yet the non-applicants were seeking to dispossess him without due process of law and hence permanent injunction be granted restraining the landlords from dispossessing him except with the due process of law. The non-applicants denied any relationship of landlord-tenant with the applicant. 3. In the course of proceedings in the applicant's suit-one basically for injunction, an application was moved by the non-applicants purporting to be one under Order 11, Rule 12 & 14 and section 30(b) CPC read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001 seeking to summon the details of telephone connections i.e. 35846, 34191 and 35222 in the disputed shop of which the applicant claimed tenancy as also the details of bank account of one Mahesh Hardware running its business from the premises in dispute of which the applicant claimed to be proprietor. It was the non-applicants' case that the aforesaid telephone connections were not situate in the shop in dispute nor in fact the applicant had any concern whatsoever with the Mahesh Hardware as would be established in the event the records of the telephone numbers 35846, 34191 and 35222 were called from the telephone department and details of account of the firm Mahes Hardware called by the court from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jhunjhunu. The Rent Tribunal's intervention was sought as the non-applicants had no access to the aforesaid evidence central to their defence. 4. The Rent Tribunal dismissed the non-applicants' application on the ground that it was only subsequent to that evidence of the applicant that his case would crystalise and necessity of the non-applicants' relevant evidence determined. At that stage an appropriate application could be considered. 5. Hence this petition. 6. 4. The Rent Tribunal dismissed the non-applicants' application on the ground that it was only subsequent to that evidence of the applicant that his case would crystalise and necessity of the non-applicants' relevant evidence determined. At that stage an appropriate application could be considered. 5. Hence this petition. 6. Counsel for the non-applicants submitted that in fact the application in issue analogous related to Order 16, Rule 6 CPC and not to one Order 11, Rule 12 & 14 and section 30(b) CPC read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001. He submitted that documents relating to the telephone connections allegedly installed in the disputed shop as claimed by the applicant as also the bank account details of Mahesh Hardware in which name and style business the applicant was allegedly carrying out business from the disputed shop were relevant for defence and to prove that no tenant-landlord relation with the applicant existed and he was only a trespasser in the shop in dispute. It was submitted that the Rent Tribunal overlooked the substance of the application and limited it to being one confined to relevant evidence of the applicant's evidence and which application would be better addressed at a subsequent stage. 7. Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, appearing for the applicant supported the impugned order dated 19-12-2013 and submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the non-applicants, inasmuch as the non-applicants' application was dismissed at a given stage leaving them free to move it afresh and summon documents in issue subsequently if so warranted on the conclusion of the applicant's evidence. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. In the facts of the case, I am of the considered view that in the context of the applicant's case set up in his suit for injunction and protection as a purported tenant from dispossession from the shop in dispute except in accordance with law, the documents sought to be brought on record by the non-applicants were quite relevant for defending their case and establishing no landlord-tenant relationship with the applicant. The defence of the non-applicants stood in the context of the averments in applicant's suit, independent of his evidence claiming to be a tenant. The documents sought to be summoned were on principles analogous to Order 16, Rule 6 CPC, and if summoned, would cause no prejudice to the applicant. The defence of the non-applicants stood in the context of the averments in applicant's suit, independent of his evidence claiming to be a tenant. The documents sought to be summoned were on principles analogous to Order 16, Rule 6 CPC, and if summoned, would cause no prejudice to the applicant. In my considered opinion, postponement of the summoning of the documents in issue to a subsequent stage as directed by the Rent Tribunal would only have the effect of delaying the adjudication of the suit before it. 10. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19-12-2013 is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is so. The Rent Tribunal is directed to summon the documents sought to be summoned by the non-applicants in their application purporting to be under Order 11 Rule12 and 14 read with section 30(b) CPC and Section 21 of the Act of 2001, but relatable to the principle underlying Order 16, Rule 6 CPC. 11. The petition stands allowed accordingly.