Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1655 (RAJ)

Lrs of Anil Arora v. Rent Tribunal

2019-05-24

SANGEET LODHA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. The defects pointed out by the Registry are waived. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. These petitions are directed against orders dated 26.3.19 and 3.5.19 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Rent Case No.81/12 (Old No.138/06). By order dated 26.3.19, an application preferred on behalf of the petitioner-tenant under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 21 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ( for short "the Act"), seeking leave to amend the reply, stands rejected, whereas vide order dated 3.5.19, an application preferred by the petitioner-tenant for taking an additional affidavit on record, stands rejected. 4. In the year 2006, the respondent-landlord filed a petition seeking eviction against the tenant Shanti Swaroop from disputed premises before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. During the pendency of the petition, Shri Shanti Swaroop expired and therefore, his son Anil Arora was substituted as respondent. Later Shri Anil Arora also expired and therefore, his legal representatives- the wife and sons have been substituted as respondents. 5. The petition was contested by the respondent Shanti Swaroop (since deceased) by filing a reply thereto. A rejoinder to the reply was also filed on behalf of the landlord- the respondents herein, way back in the month of August, 2006. The evidence of the respondent-landlord has already been completed and the matter is posted for petitioner-tenant's evidence. 6. During the pendency of the petition, the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan dismissed yet another petition being No.72/12 (Old No.56/06) preferred by the respondent-landlord seeking eviction of the tenant Rajputana Cement Company from a commercial premises on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity vide judgment dated 15.12.16. The petitioner-tenant filed an application before the Rent Tribunal for taking the said judgment on record, which was allowed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 5.1.19. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred aforesaid applications which stand rejected by the orders impugned. Hence these petitions. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant contended that the copy of the judgment dated 15.12.16 having been taken on record by the Rent Tribunal, the reply needs to be amended so as to incorporate the relevant facts in this regard as also the documents need to be exhibited in evidence and thus, the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in declining the prayer seeking leave to amend the reply. Learned counsel submitted that the document taken on record needs to be proved and thus, the Rent Tribunal has erred in refusing to take additional affidavit on record as well. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 9. It is noticed that as per the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act, in the petition filed by the landlord against the tenant, during the course of hearing the Rent Tribunal is required to hold summary inquiry as it deems necessary and decide the petition. The judgment dated 15.12.16 produced by the petitioners has already been taken on record and it is always open for the Rent Tribunal to requisition the record of the petition decided by it by the said judgment, if considers necessary and therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal cannot be faulted with and do not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. It is pertinent to note that as per the mandate of provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act, the petition filed is required to be decided within 240 days from the date of the service of notice upon the tenant. In the instant case, the reply to the petition on behalf of the petitioner-tenant was filed way back in the year 2006 and thus, the matter is pending before the Tribunal for last 13 years. It is also relevant to note that the matter is pending at the stage of the petitioner's evidence for last more than 4 years. The learned Tribunal has categorically observed that the petitioners-tenants are adopting delaying tactics and the application preferred is not bonafide. It is really unfortunate that the petition which was required to be disposed of within a period of 240 days from the date of service of notice upon the tenant is pending for last 13 years. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Rent Tribunal must take the appropriate measures and ensure that the inquiry in the matter is completed with utmost expedition and the petition is decided at the earliest. 11. In view of the discussion above, the petitions being devoid of any merit are dismissed with the observations above.