Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 839 (RAJ)

RAMGOPAL AGRAWAL v. ASHOK KUMAR SUKLECHA

2018-03-22

INDERJEET SINGH

body2018
ORDER : INDERJEET SINGH, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.01.2018 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur (Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Senior Civil Judge cum Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 5 Jaipur Metropolitan) whereby the application filed by the petitioner-tenant for taking on record the reply to the original petition was rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the application (Annexure-2) filed for taking on record the reply, there was a delay of only four days in submitting the reply before the Tribunal. Counsel further submits that one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner-tenant for submitting the reply on payment of cost. 3. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by Division Bench of this court at Principal Seat, Jodhapur in the matter of Ramesh Kumar v. Chandu Lal & another in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1132/2008 decided on 14.01.2009 wherein it has been held as under:- "28. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that while refusing to take the rejoinder filed on behalf of the landlord on record, the learned tribunal has not considered the relevant aspects of the matter which necessitates the filing of the rejoinder. The learned tribunal has refused to take the rejoinder on record that the landlord is required to prove his case and therefore, even if the new facts are introduced by the tenant in the reply, he is not adversely affected. It is reiterated that defence of a party to the proceedings before all courts, judicial bodies and quasi judicial authorities must always be fairly heard therefore, if the tenant has introduced new facts in the reply to the petition filed then, the landlord cannot be denied the opportunity to controvert the same. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the learned tribunal was not justified in refusing to take the rejoinder filed on behalf of the landlord on record by adopting erroneous reasoning. Accordingly, the matter with regard to the leave sought by the respondent no. 1 for filing the rejoinder is required to be considered by the learned tribunal afresh keeping in view , the position of law as noticed above. 29. In the result, the appeals succeed, the same are hereby allowed. Accordingly, the matter with regard to the leave sought by the respondent no. 1 for filing the rejoinder is required to be considered by the learned tribunal afresh keeping in view , the position of law as noticed above. 29. In the result, the appeals succeed, the same are hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 6.8.08 passed by the learned Single Judge in all the three writ petitions are set aside. The writ petitions preferred by the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 are partly allowed. The orders impugned passed by the learned tribunal in Rent Petition Nos. 63/07 and 58/07 and order dated 28.5.98 passed in Rent Petition No. 59/07 by the Rent tribunal, Sri Ganganagar are set aside to the extent the learned tribunal has refused to take the rejoinder filed on behalf of the landlord on record. The matter with regard to taking of rejoinder on record shall be considered afresh by the learned tribunal in accordance with law. The order passed by the learned tribunal taking the reply filed on behalf of the appellant-tenant on record is confirmed with the modification that the reply shall be taken 21 on record provided the appellant-tenant makes payment of cost to the landlord quantified at Rs. 1500/- in each case." 4. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Surendra Barmecha v. Rajesh Nath and another in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14313/2015 decided on 02.03.2017, wherein it has been held as under:- "12. In the backdrop of position of law settled by the Bench of this court, adverting to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 11 read with section 151 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, remained pending consideration for a period of about one and half years. It is true that even during the pendency of the application, the petitioner could have filed reply to the petition and on account of mere pendency of the application preferred, the tenant cannot be permitted to claim extension of time for filing the reply as a matter of right. It is true that even during the pendency of the application, the petitioner could have filed reply to the petition and on account of mere pendency of the application preferred, the tenant cannot be permitted to claim extension of time for filing the reply as a matter of right. But in the instant case, where the application preferred by the petitioner remained pending for one and half years and immediately after disposal of the application the reply to the petition has been filed, it is difficult to draw an inference that the reply to the petition was filed by the petitioner belatedly with an intention to protract the proceedings. In any case, on account of the petitioners not filing the reply within the stipulated time, the refusal of the Rent Tribunal in taking the reply on record and pendency of his petition before the court, has resulted in unnecessary delay in the expeditious disposal of the matter. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, while permitting the reply of the petition being taken on record, this court is of the opinion that the respondents deserve to be compensated by payment of exemplary cost for the delay caused. 13. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal, refusing to take the reply to the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner on record, is set aside. The application preferred by the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal for taking reply on record is allowed. The reply filed by the petitioner is directed to be taken on record, subject to payment of cost Rs. 10,000/- by the petitioner to the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, since the disposal of the matter has already been delayed on account of non filing of the reply by the respondents within the stipulated period, pendency of the application preferred by the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal for a long period and thereafter, on account of the pendency of the petition before this court, the Rent Tribunal is directed to dispose of the petition preferred by the respondents expeditiously, keeping in view the mandate of provisions of Section 15 of the Act." 5. Counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that according to the reply to the application submitted by the respondent-landlord, there is a delay of 95 days in filing the reply before the learned Tribunal. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is non consideration of grounds submitted by the petitioner-tenant in the application submitted before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur (Annexure- 2) thus the impugned order dated 03.01.2018 deserves to be set aside. In my considered view, the petitioner submitted sufficient reasons before the Rent Tribunal explaining the delay in filing the reply to the eviction application. The petitioner-tenant is 70 year old and suffering from Heart disease, therefore, the explanation submitted by the petitioner-tenant is justified. 8. In that view of the matter, considering the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this court as well as learned Single Bench of this court, I deem it just and proper, to allow the wit petition filed by the petitioner. 9. In that view of the matter, the order dated 03.01.2018 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The reply filed by the petitioner is directed to be taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- by the petitioner to the respondents. Since the petitioner as well as respondents are senior citizens, therefore, the Rent Tribunal is directed to decide the pending application preferably within a period of one year. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of.