Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2025 (RAJ)

BRIJMOHAN SHARMA v. PURSHOTTAM DAS GOYAL

2017-09-08

ALOK SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment dated 1.4.2016 whereby the Appellate Rent Tribunal ('Appellate Tribunal' hereafter) has dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment dated 30.10.2006 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar holding that the judgment impugned before it did not suffer from any illegality or error as it was based on the un-rebutted evidence of the respondent-landlord in proceedings in which the petitioner-tenant despite service and filing appearance through the counsel and did not file reply nor lead any evidence in rebuttal. 2. Counsel for the petitioner tenant submitted that though despite the service of the eviction petition and filing Vakalatnama on 19.8.2006, neither reply to the petition for revision of rent under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 was flied nor any evidence led on behalf of the tenant, consequent to which the opportunity to file reply was closed on 21.9.2006 and thereafter final judgment was passed on 30.10.2006 holding that the rent payable was liable to be revised yearly @ 5% from the base of Rs. 1000/- per month in 1973, the tenant's application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC should have been allowed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, and the appeal thereafter adjudicated. The Appellate Rent Tribunal erred in dismissing the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC as also the appeal. Counsel submitted that function of the courts is to do justice and not facilitate the capitalization on the error of a litigant. He submitted that in this view of the matter, it was incumbent upon the Appellate Tribunal to allow the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC in the interest of justice, take the petitioner-tenant's evidence on record and then adjudicate the said appeal, unless in its estimation the matter required to be remanded to the Tribunal. 3. Heard. Considered. 4. The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 was promulgated by the Rajasthan State Legislature conscious of the unconscionable delays in adjudication of the landlord-tenant disputes. For this purpose summary proceedings in landlord (tenant disputes were provided for and the labyrinthine procedures of CPC eschewed except to the very limited extent provided under Section 21(3) and mandating compliance only with principles of natural justice. Admittedly summons of the petition for revision of rent was served upon the petitioner-tenant. Admittedly, Vakalatnama on his behalf was filed on 19.8.2006. Admittedly summons of the petition for revision of rent was served upon the petitioner-tenant. Admittedly, Vakalatnama on his behalf was filed on 19.8.2006. Yet reply to the petition for revision of rent was not filed. Resultantly, opportunity to file reply to the petition for revision of rent was closed on 21.9.2006. No steps appear to have been taken even thereafter by the petitioner-tenant either to seek the recall of the aforesaid order and file reply or challenge it before the superior court. In the circumstances after about 40 days of the reply of the tenant being closed, final judgment was passed on 30.10.2006 revising the rent of the tenanted premises on the basis of un-rebutted evidence of the landlord, taking the rent at Rs. 1000/- per month in 1973 when the tenancy commenced. 5. I am of the considered view that a party remaining ex-parte before the court does not have any right to claim that she be allowed to lead evidence in appeal as additional evidence by resort to Order 41, Rule 27 CPC. Order 41, Rule 27 CPC for one does not attract to proceedings under the Act of 2001. Otherwise too it is an exception to the rule that evidence should be laid before the trial court. For the exception to apply the statutory pre-conditions have to be satisfied. Order 41, Rule 27 CPC cannot be recklessly resorted to overturn prescribed procedure and seek a right to lead evidence before the appellate court while abstaining without just cause from so doing before the trial court. None of the clauses of the aforesaid provision visualize such a possibility. The application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC filed by the petitioner tenant was rightly dismissed by the appellate Tribunal. Resultantly there being no competing evidence against the un-rebutted evidence of the landlord, the Appellate Tribunal has not committed any illegality or perversity in upholding the judgment of the Rent Tribunal. 6. It would be relevant to note that the casual approach to proceedings before the Court should not and cannot be countenanced by courts. In all circumstances, summons of the court should be treated as an emergency. They are a cry for justice at the instance of a citizen before a duly constituted court of law. 6. It would be relevant to note that the casual approach to proceedings before the Court should not and cannot be countenanced by courts. In all circumstances, summons of the court should be treated as an emergency. They are a cry for justice at the instance of a citizen before a duly constituted court of law. Non-responsiveness to summons of the court, more-so in summary proceedings should entail ex-parte proceedings or closure of the right to file reply or evidence as the facts in a case may warrant. In the event, despite party summoned, filing presence in Court through counsel or by self, does not file reply/written statement and/or does not lead evidence without just cause, for the rule of law to sustain, the courts have to be firm and proceed ex-parte lest the litigating public loose faith in the administration of justice for reason of unconscionable delays-which then are attributed to the court itself. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.