Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1249 (RAJ)

Suresh Chand v. Balwantsingh

2018-05-10

INDERJEET SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT Inderjeet Singh, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 14.02.2018 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar whereby the application filed by the petitioner-tenant under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 C.P.C. was dismissed. 2. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant submitted that the respondent-landlord has filed the eviction application on the ground of bona fide need and personal necessity for Yashwant Singh who is son of respondent-landlord No.2 for starting the business of general store. Counsel further submits that Yashwant Singh is residing at Jaipur and doing business of jewellery. Counsel further submits that prior to filing of application before the Rent Tribunal, Alwar, he has also filed an application under RTI Act, 2005 before the Income Tax Department to procure the income tax returns of Shri Yashwant Singh but the Income Tax Department refused to provide the same. Therefore, the petitioner-tenant filed the application under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 before the learned Rent Tribunal for summoning the income tax returns and bank account of Shri Yashwant Singh. Counsel submits that the order passed by the Learned Tribunal is erroneous as the documents are very much required to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. In support of his contentions, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Paras Drugs And Chemical Industries And Others Vs. UCO Bank & Ors. reported in (2001) 3 WLC 191 wherein para No.9 it has been held as under:- "9. The law is well settled on the subject that if sufficient cause is explained by a party seeking discovery and inspection of the documents, which are in possession and power of the contesting party, the court can. In the interest of justice, in appropriate cases, allow the production of such documents, provided the production is necessary for just decision of the case. This fact is fortified from the observation made by the Apex Court in the matter of Shri M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur , wherein it was observed that "the documents sought to be discovered need not be admissible in evidence in the enquiry or proceedings. It is sufficient if the documents would be relevant for the purpose of throwing light on the matter in controversy. It is sufficient if the documents would be relevant for the purpose of throwing light on the matter in controversy. Every document which will throw any light on the case is a document relating to a matter in dispute in the proceedings, though it might not be admissible in evidence. In other words, a document might be inadmissible in evidence yet it may contain information which may either directly or indirectly enable the party seeking discovery either to advance his case or damage the adversary's case or which may lead to a trail of enquiry consequences. The word 'document' in this context includes anything that is written or printed, on matter what the material may be upon which the writing or printing is inserted or imprinted." 3. Counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal and submitted that the income tax returns and bank accounts are not necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties as the issue of bona fide necessity has to be proved by the landlord. Counsel further submits that the discretion has been used by the Rent Tribunal in dismissing the application submitted by the petitioner-tenant and the same is not liable to be disturbed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this Court. In support of his contentions, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Gopichand Vs. Jairam Das in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3027/2017 decided on 04.04.2017 wherein it has been held as under:- "Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 04.02.2017. Thereby the Rent Tribunal has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner-tenant for calling of Income Tax returns of the respondent- landlord for the purpose of adjudication of his eviction petition laid against the tenant on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity. The trial court has held that the said documents were not relevant to the adjudication of the issue before it in the eviction petition. I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment dated 04.02.2017 has been passed in the exercise of judicious discretion of the trial court. It is neither perverse nor patently illegal. The trial court has held that the said documents were not relevant to the adjudication of the issue before it in the eviction petition. I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment dated 04.02.2017 has been passed in the exercise of judicious discretion of the trial court. It is neither perverse nor patently illegal. It appears that the filing the application for summoning the Income Tax returns of the respondent-landlord and also this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the same purpose in the facts of the case is an absolute abuse of the process of the Court. The petition stands dismissed with at costs of Rs. 5000/-." 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The argument raised by counsel for the petitioner regarding wrongful dismissal of the application by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar is not accepted as the Learned Rent Tribunal in its discretion has dismissed the application as the document i.e. income tax return as well as bank account of Yashwant Singh are not necessary to decide the dispute between the parties. The Learned Rent Tribunal has framed the issue of bona fide necessity which is to be proved by the landlord and in my considered view the order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal dated 14.02.2018 does not require interference by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hameed Kunju Vs. Nazimin, reported in (2017) 8 Supreme Court Cases 621, has observed as under:- "43. Before parting, we consider it apposite to observe that the object of the Rent Laws all over the State is to ensure speedy disposal of eviction cases between the landlord and tenant and especially those cases where the landlord seek eviction for his bona fide need. 44. We sincerely feel that the eviction matters should be given priority in their disposal at all stages of litigation and especially where the eviction is claimed on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. We hope and trust that due attention would be paid by all courts to ensure speedy disposal of eviction cases." 7. 44. We sincerely feel that the eviction matters should be given priority in their disposal at all stages of litigation and especially where the eviction is claimed on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. We hope and trust that due attention would be paid by all courts to ensure speedy disposal of eviction cases." 7. The matter is pending before the Rent Tribunal, Alwar since the year 2011, therefore in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hameed Kunju (supra), the Rent Tribunal is directed to decide the pending eviction application within a period of six months. 8. The writ petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed with the observations (supra).