Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2398 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar v. Rajendra Kumar

2019-09-06

SANGEET LODHA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is directed against order dated 16.7.19 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Pali in Rent Case No.85/15, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner-tenant seeking amendment of reply to the rent application seeking eviction, has been dismissed. 2. The facts relevant are that the respondent-landlord filed an application under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act") seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from commercial premises on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement, which is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. In the reply filed, the petitioner denied the factum of rent due and in the additional pleas, specifically averred that a sum of Rs.2,41,000/- were paid by him to the landlord Shri Tejraj as security deposit. 3. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner produced the notice alleged to have been sent by the plaintiff-respondent to Sharad Kumar s/o Shri Tejraj Jain, who was a co-sharer in the disputed property, regarding the rent due and security deposit of the tenants occupying inter alia the disputed premises and the reply to the said notice given by Sharad Kumar, which were taken on record by the Rent Tribunal. 4. The petitioner preferred an application seeking leave to amend the reply so as to incorporate the pleadings relating to the aforesaid notice and reply thereto, which deal with the dispute regarding rent due and the security deposit in respect of the premises in question. The application has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Rent Tribunal has committed serious illegality in observing that at the stage of evidence of the respondent-landlord, the amendment sought for is not necessary and the same shall unnecessary delay the proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that so as to prove the documents produced, incorporation of the pleadings relating thereto, is absolutely necessary and thus, the same could not have been refused by the Rent Tribunal in perfunctory manner. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a coordinate Bench decision of this court in the matter of Navneet Kumar & Ors. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a coordinate Bench decision of this court in the matter of Navneet Kumar & Ors. vs. Ma ha veer Prasad & Ors., 2009(1) DNJ (Raj.) 394, wherein the court held that where to make the sequence complete and avoid confusion, the pleadings relevant to the documents on record is necessary, the amendment needs to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner in the reply to the rent petition, while denying the factum of the rent due and default in payment thereof, has already specifically averred regarding the security amount deposited by him with the landlord and therefore, no pleadings whatsoever is required to be incorporated in relation to the documents produced and thus, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. A bare perusal of the reply to the petition submitted by the petitioner placed on record as Annexure 2, reveals that the factum of default in payment of rent has been specifically denied by him and in the additional pleas, a specific averment has been made that a sum of Rs.2,41,000/- was deposited by the petitioner with the landlord Tejraj. In this view of the matter, the documents produced, if the same have any evidentiary value, can always be relied upon by the petitioner in support of the defence set out in reply to the petition. No specific pleadings in respect of the documents in question need to be incorporated inasmuch as, the relevance thereof is pleaded by the petitioner in respect of the specific stand already taken in reply to the petition. 9. In view of the conclusion arrived at by this court as aforesaid, the decision of this court in Navneet Kumar's case (supra), which is based on the facts situation of the particular case, does not help the petitioner in any manner. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, in the considered opinion of this court, 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. 11. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, in the considered opinion of this court, 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. 11. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.