Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1661 (RAJ)

Sita Ram Sharma v. Mohammad Saleem Qureshi

2018-08-07

INDERJEET SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner tenant against the order dated 8.12.2017 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur whereby the application filed by the petitioner tenant under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of additional issues was rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent landlord filed an eviction application against the petitioner-tenant before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur on the grounds of bonafide need and personal necessity and default in making payment of rent etc. The petitioner-tenant filed reply to the said application. On the basis of the pleading of the parties issues were framed by the learned Rent Tribunal. During pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal, the petitioner-tenant filed an application for framing of additional issue which was rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 08.12.2017. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Rent Tribunal is against the law and the Rent Tribunal failed to frame additional issue which was required to decide the present controversy. Counsel further submits that at the time of taking the disputed property on rent, the petitioner-tenant has paid an amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- as advance as pagadi (security amount) and no issue was framed by the Rent Tribunal in this regard. 4. Counsel for the petitioner tenant relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Vijay Kaushik Vs. ADJ (Fast Track) Tijara, District Alwar & Ors. in paras 6 to 8 it has been held as under : “6. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned all the relevant orders, it becomes imperative to reproduce Rule 2 of Order XIV of CPC which reads thus: Court to pronounce judgment on all issues - (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-Rule (2) pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to- (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue] 7. Rule 2(1) of Order XIV CPC contemplates that the Court shall frame all the issues and pronounce the judgment thereon subject to the provisions of Sub-Rule 2. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 2 of Order XIV CPC further contemplates that where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof could be disposed of on an issue of law only, the Court could try that issue first if that arose relating to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose could, if it thought fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue had been determined, and could deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. The pith and substance of the scheme of Rule 2 of Order XIV CPC is that the Court is required to frame all the issues based on the pleadings of the parties and if thereafter the Court found fit to decide only legal issues and the case could be decided based on those issues, the Court ought to have tried those legal issues first. Thus, in view of the provisions of Rule 2 of Order XIV CPC, it becomes necessary to frame all the issues based on the pleadings of the parties but the learned trial Court is found to have scribbled only two lines' ordersheet which reveals about framing of only preliminary issues and adjourning the case for recording the evidence of the plaintiff. It is now shown in the ordersheet as to why did the Court think it necessary to frame only preliminary issues. It is now shown in the ordersheet as to why did the Court think it necessary to frame only preliminary issues. No reason has been assigned by the learned trial Court for framing these issues. Hence, the impugned order is not found to be proper and apt. It is rather blank and non-speaking and the same deserves to be set aside. 8. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 15th September, 2008 stands set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to frame all the issues based on pleadings of the parties and thereafter to proceed with the trial of suit in accordance with the provisions of law.” 5. Counsel for the respondent landlord submitted that in the rent note no amount of advance (pagadi) was mentioned therefore the said issue was not required to be framed by the Rent Tribunal and the learned Rent Tribunal has rightly rejected the application. Counsel further relied upon the judgment in this regard passed by this Court in the matter of Kusum Chand & Anr. Vs. Kanhaiyalal & Anr. reported in AIR 1974 Rajasthan 73 where in para-8 it has been held as under : “In the alternative the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that assuming it to be a case of goodwill fused into 'Aadat' then to the contract being opposed to public policy was not enforceable at law. Mr. D.P Gupta raised an interesting question that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act was limited in its applicability to the premise situate within Rajasthan as laid down by' Section 2 thereof and the Bombay Rent Act could not apply because the contract was made in Rajasthan. It is not necessary to examine this argument resting on conflict of laws because the question can be disposed of on the simple ground that any premium over and above the standard rent is opposed to public policy and cannot be enforced at law. Almost throughout India to regulate the relationship between landlord and tenant particularly in urban areas there are provisions which lay down that any claim beyond the standard rent permissible under the law by what ever name called was prohibited. Almost throughout India to regulate the relationship between landlord and tenant particularly in urban areas there are provisions which lay down that any claim beyond the standard rent permissible under the law by what ever name called was prohibited. Public Policy in such a situation can be easily gathered from the will of legislature in various States and can be certainly taken notice of and on that ground the alternative argument of the appellant must succeed. The contract is void under Section 23 of the Contract Act.” Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable for the reasons, firstly according to rent note there is no mention about the taking of security amount or pagadi by the respondent landlord and secondly in the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 there is no provision about 'taking of pagadi amount and thirdly I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in such matter. 7. In that view of the matter the writ petition filed by the petitioner tenant stands dismissed.