Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2113 (RAJ)

A. K. Education Society v. Shyamlal Deora

2019-08-06

SANGEET LODHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : SANGEET LODHA, J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 5.12.18 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Rent Case No. 857/12, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner-tenant questioning the admissibility of the documents produced on behalf of the respondent-landlord alongwith his affidavit, has been rejected. 2. The facts relevant are that the respondent filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from a residential premises on the grounds of default in payment of rent, material alteration, the use of the premises for purpose inconsistent with the purpose for which it was let out and reasonable and bona fide requirement. The petition is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. 3. The petition was filed by the respondent on 23.3.12, which was accompanied by affidavits of P.W. 1-Shyamlal Deora and P.W. 2-Kuldeep. The respondent annexed certain documents with the affidavit filed, which were marked as Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/17. The petitioner filed reply to the petition alongwith affidavit belatedly on 26.4.13, which was taken on record on payment of cost Rs. 300/-. Vide order dated 25.9.13, the Rent Tribunal permitted the parties to cross examine the witnesses. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned time and again for one or another reason. 4. The cross examination of P.W. 1-Shyamlal commenced on 23.1.16, which remained incomplete due to paucity of time. The witness was further cross examined on 12.7.16 but the cross examination could not be completed. The cross examination was resumed on 23.5.17 but was further reserved on the counsel appearing for the petitioner stating that he is not feeling well. Thereafter, further cross examination was recorded on 6.11.17, 13.3.18, 19.5.18 and 18.9.18. At this stage, the petitioner raised objection regarding admissibility of document Ex. P/15, P/16 and Ex. 18 to 22 in evidence, stating that the said documents are not original or the copies thereof duly compared and thus, cannot be permitted to be exhibited in evidence. The application preferred by the petitioner in this regard has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 5. The application has been rejected by the Tribunal observing that the documents Ex. P/15 & P/16 were filed by the respondent alongwith original petition on 19.3.12 and Ex. The application preferred by the petitioner in this regard has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 5. The application has been rejected by the Tribunal observing that the documents Ex. P/15 & P/16 were filed by the respondent alongwith original petition on 19.3.12 and Ex. 18 to 22 were produced alongwith rejoinder on 13.8.13 and thus, if the petitioner had any objection regarding the admissibility of the documents, such objection could have been raised at the stage when the same were tendered in evidence by way of affidavit. The court observed that after cross examination of the respondent on different dates, the objection raised regarding admissibility of the documents in evidence cannot be entertained. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner or his counsel had no knowledge about the said documents being tendered in evidence on behalf of the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that the counsel for the petitioner came to know about the said documents only on 18.9.18 during the cross examination of the respondent P.W. 1-Shyamlal. Learned counsel submitted that when the substantial justice and technicalities are pitted against each other, the former has to be preferred over the later and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal rejecting the application preferred on behalf of the petitioner only on the ground that objection was raised belatedly, deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has never admitted the said documents and thus, the admissibility thereof is permissible to be raised at any stage of the proceedings and thus, viewed from any angle the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the stand sought to be taken by the petitioner that the petitioner came to know about the documents tendered in evidence only on 18.9.18 is absolutely false inasmuch as, the documents Ex. 15 & 16, were made part of the petition and were tendered in evidence alongwith the affidavit which was filed alongwith the petition on 19.3.12. Similarly, the document Ex. P/18 to P/22 were filed alongwith rejoinder on 13.8.13. Learned counsel submitted that copy of the petition and rejoinder alongwith affidavits were duly served upon the petitioner and thus, the contention sought to be raised is apparently based on falsehood. Similarly, the document Ex. P/18 to P/22 were filed alongwith rejoinder on 13.8.13. Learned counsel submitted that copy of the petition and rejoinder alongwith affidavits were duly served upon the petitioner and thus, the contention sought to be raised is apparently based on falsehood. Learned counsel submitted that during the course of hearing of the petition filed seeking eviction as per provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 15, the Rent Tribunal is only required to hold such summary inquiry as it deems necessary and decide the petition, thus, the rule of evidence even do not apply to the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal strictly. Learned counsel submitted that the exhibits are marked on the documents produced as per the mandate of provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 22 when filed alongwith the affidavit and thus, the objection if any regarding the admissibility of the document in evidence is permissible to be raised at the stage when such documents are tendered in evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the objection raised by the petitioner questioning the admissibility of the documents belatedly after a lapse of about five years since the same were tendered in evidence after cross examination of the respondent on six occasions, has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is adopting the delaying tactics throughout the proceedings, which is apparent from the record and thus, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal in conformity with the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act of 2001"), does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Rent Tribunal requisitioned by this court. 9. Indisputably, the Act of 2001 has been enacted inter alia with the object to provide timely justice to the litigants involved in the rent and eviction litigations. To accomplish the said goal, setting up of two tiers of the tribunal i.e. Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal is envisaged and the provisions are incorporated in the Act of 2001 providing for the time frame for various procedural stages in the proceedings before Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal. 10. To accomplish the said goal, setting up of two tiers of the tribunal i.e. Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal is envisaged and the provisions are incorporated in the Act of 2001 providing for the time frame for various procedural stages in the proceedings before Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal. 10. As per provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 15, the landlord or any person claiming possession shall file the petition before the Rent Tribunal, which shall be accompanied by affidavits and documents, if any, upon which landlord or person claiming possession wants to rely. As per provisions of sub-section (2), the tenant on receipt of the notice accompanied by copies of petition, affidavit and documents if any, is required to file reply accompanied by affidavits and documents if any, on which the tenant relies. The tenant is required to file reply alongwith affidavits and documents within a period not exceeding 45 days from the date of service of the notice. The rejoinder to be filed on behalf of the landlord is also required to be filed within 30 days after service of copy thereof to the opposite party. 11. Further, as provided under sub-section (6) of Section 15of the Act of 2001, during the course of hearing, the Rent Tribunal is only required to hold summary inquiry as it deem necessary and decide the petition. The petition has to be disposed of within a period of 240 days from the date of service of the notice on the tenant. The Rent Tribunal is also required to make efforts in the first instance for conciliation or settlement of the dispute between the parties. 12. As per provisions of Section 21, which provides for procedure and power of the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal, the evidence of the witnesses shall be given by the affidavit. However, where it appears necessary to the Rent Tribunal or Appellate Rent Tribunal in the interest of justice to call a witness for examination or cross examination and such witness can be produced, may order attendance for examination or cross examination of such a witness. Suffice it to say that the cross examination also cannot be claimed in every matter as a matter of right. 13. As per sub-section (2) of Section 21, the documents to be filed by the petitioner are required to be distinctly marked by him as Ex. 1, Ex. Suffice it to say that the cross examination also cannot be claimed in every matter as a matter of right. 13. As per sub-section (2) of Section 21, the documents to be filed by the petitioner are required to be distinctly marked by him as Ex. 1, Ex. 2 and so on in the red ink and the documents filed by the respondent shall be similarly distinctly marked by him as Ex. A/1, Ex. A/2 and so on red ink and in the affidavits, the documents shall be referred by these exhibits marks and signature and other parts of the document referred to in affidavit shall be distinctly marked by the party filing the document as A to B or C to D and so on in the red ink. Thus, the documents having been produced by the parties with the exhibit markings as specified, which are duly served on the opposite party and therefore, no party to the proceedings can claim that he was not aware as to which documents are relied upon by the opposite party. 14. That apart, as per sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act of 2001, the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal are not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 but shall be guided by principle of natural justice and subject to other provision of the Act or the rules made thereunder have powers to regulate their own procedure for the purpose of discharging their functions. Thus, looking at the scheme of the Act where the evidence is permitted to be tendered by way of affidavits and the documents annexed with the affidavit are mandated to be mark exhibits in the first instance while filing the same in the specified manner, nobody can be permitted to raise the objection regarding the admissibility of the documents tendered in evidence at the belated stage, specially when, in the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal only summary inquiry is required to be made and the matter is required to be disposed of within time frame. 15. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the petition alongwith affidavits and documents duly marked exhibits was filed by the petitioner on 23.3.12. 15. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the petition alongwith affidavits and documents duly marked exhibits was filed by the petitioner on 23.3.12. The petitioner herein could not be served by way of ordinary course and therefore, notice was served upon it by substituted service i.e. by publication in the newspaper. The copies of the petition alongwith documents was served upon the counsel for the petitioner herein on 13.3.13. The reply to the petition was not filed by the petitioner herein within the time frame, however, on an application being preferred on its behalf, the same was taken on record on payment of cost Rs. 300/- on 17.7.13. The rejoinder alongwith additional affidavit and documents were filed on behalf of the respondent in the month of July, 2013. After a lapse of about two years, the petitioner herein filed an application to struck off the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent from record, which was rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 3.10.15 and the matter was posted for cross-examination of the respondent. The cross-examination of the respondent commenced on 23.1.16. At this stage, the petitioner herein preferred an application for framing of the issues, which was rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 30.4.16. As noticed above, the cross-examination of the respondent was resumed on 12.7.16 and thereafter on various dates it remained incomplete. After cross-examination of the respondent on six occasions, the petitioner who was well aware about the documents tendered in evidence already marked exhibits, raised the objection regarding admissibility of documents. In the considered opinion of this Court, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Rent Tribunal, which is expected to only make a summary inquiry and decide the rent petition within the time framed, has rightly rejected the objection of the petitioner raised at the belated stage, questioning the admissibility of the documents already exhibited in the evidence. Having gone through the proceedings taken by the Rent Tribunal in the instance case, this Court is constraint to observe that the petitioner herein is adopting delaying tactics and for this reason, the rent petition, which was required to be disposed of within the time framed as specified under Section 15 of the Act of 2001, is still pending. Having gone through the proceedings taken by the Rent Tribunal in the instance case, this Court is constraint to observe that the petitioner herein is adopting delaying tactics and for this reason, the rent petition, which was required to be disposed of within the time framed as specified under Section 15 of the Act of 2001, is still pending. Such delaying tactics adopted by the unscrupulous litigant needs to be checked by the Rent Tribunal. 16. In view of the discussion above, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 17. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with cost Rs. 5,000/-. The cost shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent within a period of two weeks. The record of the case may be sent back to the Rent Tribunal forthwith. The Rent Tribunal is expected to conclude the summary inquiry as mandated by provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 2001, and decide the petition expeditiously.