Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 345 (RAJ)

Govind Ram v. Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar

2018-01-25

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. All the abovementioned writ petitions shall stand disposed of by this common order. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is to set aside the order dated 3.12.2016 passed by the Rent Tribunal rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 3. The respondent-landlord preferred the eviction petitions under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act praying for a decree of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as of bona-fide necessity for his two sons namely Ankit Sethi and Rohit Sethi. The petitioner filed his written statement. A specific stand was taken by the petitioner tenant in the written statement that both Ankit Sethi and Rohit Sethi are not unemployed, in fact they are running a hotel in the name of Sethi Hotel and Restaurant. Subsequently, in pursuance to a raid conducted by the Excise Department, both the sons were arrested in the hotel in question while selling the illegal liquor and an FIR was registered against them. The petitioner-tenant, accordingly filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to permit him to amend the written statement and bring the subsequent events on record which would strengthen the stand that the sons of the respondent-landlord are not unemployed. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has already raised the objection in the written statement that Ankit Sethi and Rohit Sethi are already employed. Thereafter, the petitioner also moved an application under Order 8 Rule 8 Rule 1(3) to place the said documents on record. The said application too was rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent while opposing submitted that instead of producing the documents, the petitioner can always put these documents to the witness. 5. After hearing, this Court is satisfied that there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as the specific stand taken by the petitioner that respondent landlord does not need the same for bona-fide necessity of his sons already finds mention in the written statement. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case as also taking in account that the petitioner-tenant otherwise has a right to produce documents which come into existence after filing of the written statement, he should be permitted to at least place the said document on record. 6. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case as also taking in account that the petitioner-tenant otherwise has a right to produce documents which come into existence after filing of the written statement, he should be permitted to at least place the said document on record. 6. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner has somehow not challenged the order dismissing the application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) but same is probably on account of his understanding that he would succeed in the present petitions against the dismissal of his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Hence, in the interest of justice as also taking into account that there is no serious objection, instead of granting permission to the petitioner to challenge the same at this stage which would result in unnecessary delay, it would be appropriate to allow the petitioner to produce the said documents before the Rent Tribunal with all just exceptions. Accordingly, the petitioner is allowed to produce the said documents on record. 7. The rent petitions were filed way back in the year 2015. It is informed to this Court that trial did not proceed any further on account of pendency of the present writ petitions. Hence, the learned Tribunal is directed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months of the next date fixed before it. The writ petitions are disposed of as above.