Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2719 (RAJ)

Simrat Exports v. Anil Tiwari

2017-12-07

INDERJEET SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Inderjeet Singh, J. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.09.2015 (Annexure-IV) passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur by which the application under Order 14, Rule 5 C.P.C. was dismissed. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have made the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to this matter and after examining the same may kindly issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30/09/2015 (Annexure 4) and may also allow the Application filed under Order 14, Rule 5 civil Procedure Code (Annexure 3) by the Petitioners/Non applicants in its entity; (ii) And by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Petitioners/Non-applicants be allowed to adduce their evidence and to get examined evidence on their behalf and part, as per law. (iii) The proposed issues as per the Application under Order 14, Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code be ordered to be added as issues to the earlier framed issues by the learned Rent Tribunal, (iv) Any other appropriate writ, order and direction which may found to be prim and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioners/Non-applicants. (v) Costs of this writ Petition may kindly be allowed." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/applicants have filed an application under Section 9(a) and (f) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 against the petitioners/non-applicants before the competent court of Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. The said application was filed by the applicants/respondents for eviction against the non-applicants petitioners before the Rent Tribunal. The said application was filed in the year 2009 and after recording the evidence of applicants, the matter was fixed by the Tribunal for the evidence of non-applicants on 09.02.2012. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14, Rule 5 C.P.C. without considering the necessary facts mentioned in the application. Counsel further argued that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in closing the evidence of the petitioner-non-applicant. Counsel further argued that the learned Tribunal while passed the order dated 30.09.2015 has not given any sufficient reasons for dismissal of their application. 5. Counsel further argued that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in closing the evidence of the petitioner-non-applicant. Counsel further argued that the learned Tribunal while passed the order dated 30.09.2015 has not given any sufficient reasons for dismissal of their application. 5. Counsel for the respondents filed reply to the writ petition and submitted that the intention of the petitioners is to delay the eviction proceedings pending before the learned Tribunal for one reasons or another. Counsel further submitted that the petitioners have earlier filed an application under Order 14, Rule 5 on dated 24.04.2014 which was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 15.07.2015. Counsel further submits that the second application submitted by the petitioners under Order 14, Rule 5 has rightly been dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2015 mentioning therein that the contentions raised in the application would be considered at the time of final hearing of the application. Counsel further submitted that the original application is pending before the Tribunal and the same was fixed for evidence of nonapplicants on 09.02.2012 and three witnesses were examined upto 20.12.2013 and thereafter from 20.12.2013 to 30.09.2015, the petitioners sought time to submit their further evidence but failed to submit any further evidence despite opportunities given by the tribunal. The intention of the petitioner is only to delay the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal. 6. Counsel for the respondent has also prepared a chart in reply to the writ petition which shows the conduct of the petitioners non-applicants to delay the proceedings pending before Rent Tribunal which reads as under:- 9.2.2012 Defendants want time to present his witnesses. 29.3.2012 Adjournment was given for the cross-examination of defendant. 7.5.2012 P.O. was on leave 19.5.2012 Adjournment for compromise 02.7.2012 Adjournment for compromise 20.07.2012 Again fixed for defendant cross examination of defendant. 22.08.2012 Defendant will be cross examined on the next date 30.8.2012 30.08.2012 DW 1 Ms. Simrat Sindhu was partly examined 29.09.2012 Again for compromise 16.10.2012 Again for compromise 22.11.2012 Again for compromise 07.12.2012 Again for compromise 09.01.2013 Again for compromise 18.01.2013 Again for compromise 19.01.2013 Again fixed for the cross examination of defendant 13.02.2013 Defendant counsel wanted Adjournment for producing witnesses 02.03.2013 Cross Examinations of DW 1 03.09.2013 No. evidence of defendant 18.07.2013 No. evidence of defendant 27.08.2013 P.O. on leave. 11.10.2013 Applicant advocate sought adjournment for cross examination of witness. 11.10.2013 Applicant advocate sought adjournment for cross examination of witness. 07.11.2013 Partial cross examination of DW2 completed 27.11.2013 P.O. on leave Four Adjournments were given for DW2, DW3 20.12.2013 DW2, DW3 cross examined and for other witnesses time was sought 31.01.2014 No evidence of defendant 25.02.2014 Advocate strike 11.3.2014 No evidence of defendant adjournment 24.04.2014 Application under Order 14, Rule 5 by defendant submitted 23.05.2014 Applicant replied adjournment for argument. 14.07.2014 Non Cooperation by advocate hence adjournment 23.08.2014 Non Cooperation by advocate hence adjournment 23.09.2014 Adjournment for arguments on application. 01.11.2014 Adjournment for arguments on application 06.12.2014 Argument completed fixed for order on 03.01.2015 03.01.2015 Again argument heard on application. 27.01.2015 Date for compromise. 16.02.2015 File was transferred to another court of rent tribunal 27.02.2015 File received in another court 18.03.2015 Date for compromise. 01.04.2015 Defendant submitted application under Order 6 R 17 and 151 CPC. Applicant do not want to file reply 7.5.2015 Deferred for arguments on application. 03.07.2015 Deferred. 06.07.2015 Arguments heard. 15.07.2015 Application of Defendant was rejected with cost of Rs. 500/- 18.8.2015 No witness of defendant 4.9.2015 No witness of defendant Defendant was ordered to produce all remaining evidence on next date of hearing and the advocate of applicant was directed to cross examine them. If witness not present the evidence of defendant shall be deemed to be closed. 30.9.2015 Application under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC was submitted which was to be disposed off at the time of final hearing. No evidence of defendant was present till 4.00 pm. Hence the evidence was closed. The case was fixed for final argument for many times as below 1. 27.10.2015 4. 27.12.2015, 7. 29.04.2016 2. 04.11.2015 5. 6.01.2016 8. 11.07.2016 3. 26.11.2015 6.15.03.2016 9.11.08.2016 26.09.2016 Advocate of defendant submitted application under Order 26, Rule 9 and 151CPC which was fixed for argument on 25.10.2016 25.10.2016 PO was on tour 25.11.2016 Arguments were heard on the application under Order 26, Rule 9 And the case was fixed for order on 21.12.2016 21.12.2016 Application of the defendant was rejected and the case was fixed and the final arguments on 14.02.2017 14.02.2017 Time required by the advocates for final arguments 10.03.2017 Advocates for applicant submitted written arguments. Defendant advocates also wanted time to submit written arguments. The case was fixed 10.04.2017 10.04.2017 P.O. on leave. Defendant advocates also wanted time to submit written arguments. The case was fixed 10.04.2017 10.04.2017 P.O. on leave. The case was fixed for written arguments the defendants advocates on 08.05.2017 08.05.2017 P.O. on leave. The case was fixed for written arguments of the defendants advocates on 05.07.2017 05.07.2017 PO on leave. The case was fixed for written arguments of the defendants advocates on 19.08.2017 19.08.2017 Advocates of both parties present. Defendant advocates refused to submit written arguments and instead wanted time for final arguments. 15.09.2017 On the day of final hearing defendant advocate submitted applications under Order 8, Rule 1 (3) under section 151 CPC. 7. Heard counsel for the parties. 8. It is unfortunate that the eviction application was filed before the Rent Tribunal in the year 2009 which has not been decided by the learned Tribunal even after passing of eight years. 9. The writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed for the reasons, firstly the learned Tribunal has mentioned in its order dated 30.09.2015 that the contentions mentioned in the application under Order 14, Rule 5 C.P.C. would be considered at the time of final hearing of the application, secondly the evidence of the petitioners-non-applicants have rightly been closed as the time was given by the Tribunal to produce the remaining witnesses from 20.12.2013 10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. The Rent Tribunal is directed to decide the original application filed by the respondents/applicants under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 within a period of three months.