Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1119 (RAJ)

Umesh Jhamb v. Parkash Rani

2019-04-12

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "(i) The order dated 16.02.2019 (Annexure-12) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) The three applications dated 05.01.2019 (Annexure-6 to 8) may kindly be allowed as prayed for. (iii) The cost may be awarded in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 18(2) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner for recovery of arrears of rent. The petitioner filed a reply to the said application under Section 18(2) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and denied the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship between him and the respondent. The respondent submitted a rejoinder to the said reply before the learned Rent Tribunal. After hearing the parties, the judgment was pronounced by the learned Rent Tribunal on 04.03.2013 dismissing the rent petition filed by the respondent. 3. The respondent thereafter, challenged the aforementioned order dated 04.03.2013 passed in case No. 24/2010 by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner by way of filing an appeal before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner. During pendency of the appeal before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was filed by the respondent seeking to bring certain documents on record. 4. The learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide order dated 26.8.2014 allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and remanded the matter back to the learned Rent Tribunal, only to the extent of issue No. 1. 5. Thereafter, an application under Section 153 CPC was filed by the respondent before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, which was also allowed and the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide order dated 13.01.2015, while setting aside the order of the learned Rent Tribunal, remanded the matter back to the learned Rent Tribunal to the extent of issues No. 2 and 3 as well, for fresh consideration after taking evidence on record. 6. 6. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 for amendment of the issues. It was stated in the said application that issue No. 1 was framed with regard to default in payment of the arrears of rent, whereas the petition was filed only recovery of the arrears, and there is no ground of the default in payment of the arrears. The petitioner also made a request to delete issues No. 1 to 3 framed earlier and prayed for framing of a new issue. 7. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 21 read with Section 11 of the Court Fee Act and under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC with the averment that the respondent in the rent application has although prayed for arrears of rent alongwith 18% interest per annum, but did not pay the appropriate court fee. 8. The learned trial court, after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 16.02.2019, rejected all the three applications. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision in the court fee and framing of issues were required to be made, and thus, the rejection of the applications filed by the petitioner was inappropriate. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus, justified the three applications dated 05.01.2019. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent however, submitted that the eviction suit was filed in the year 2010 and has been going on for almost nine years, and thus, at this stage when no material change in the original pleadings has been made, then permitting the petitioner to file new applications just for the purpose of delaying the proceedings was inappropriate. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the impugned orders, this Court finds that the impugned orders are justified, as the original case was filed on 16.03.2010, and it is reflected in the order-sheet dated 23.10.2010 that the parties were satisfied with the issues so framed at that juncture, and thereafter, since no material change is reflected in the pleadings, therefore, at this belated stage, the petitioner is barred to now contend that the issues need to be re-framed. The issue of court fee shall be decided by the learned court below at the appropriate stage, and thus, needs no adjudication by this Court at this stage. The issue of court fee shall be decided by the learned court below at the appropriate stage, and thus, needs no adjudication by this Court at this stage. Therefore, this Court finds that the impugned orders are well justified and do not call for any interference by this Court. 12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. Stay Application No. 4006/2019 also stands dismissed.