Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2899 (RAJ)

Nevandas Sindhi v. Kailash Kanwar Jain

2019-11-25

INDERJEET SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : Inderjeet Singh, J. 1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the Trial Court whereby application submitted by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for submitting the affidavit of her son in evidence was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 (landlord) filed an eviction application under Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the rent Tribunal in the year 2011 seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant as well as respondent No. 2, on the grounds of personal need and bonafide necessity and sub-letting. The petitioner-tenant filed reply to the eviction application on 23.07.2011. Along with reply the petitioner has also submitted the affidavit of Gayatri Devi. The evidence of the landlord-respondent No. 1 was recorded and affidavit of landlord was already there on record and evidence of the landlord was completed in the year 2014. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal granted as many as 15 opportunity to the petitioner-tenant for her cross-examination and when petitioner-tenant failed to appear for cross-examination then evidence of the petitioner was closed on 05.10.2017. Thereafter, application was submitted by the petitioner-tenant for her cross-examination. The learned Tribunal allowed the petitioner-tenant one more opportunity for her cross-examination on 13.08.2018. At the time of cross-examination, the petitioner-tenant submitted an application on 01.12.2018 along with affidavit of son of the tenant namely Jhaman Das. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 25.07.2019. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.07.2019. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court has committed serious illegality in not allowing the opportunity to the petitioner-tenant to submit the affidavit of her son as her son is also doing business in the disputed premises. Counsel further submitted that the matter is at the stage where the evidence of the tenant is still going on, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent-landlord if the application is allowed. 4. In support of his contention counsel relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Mustaq Ahmed & Ors. vs. Liyakat Ali & Anr. reported in 2010(3) WLC 546 : 2010(3) RLW 2209. 5. 4. In support of his contention counsel relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Mustaq Ahmed & Ors. vs. Liyakat Ali & Anr. reported in 2010(3) WLC 546 : 2010(3) RLW 2209. 5. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the learned Tribunal has granted as many as 15 opportunities to submit the evidence to the petitioner-tenant and when the petitioner-tenant failed to appear for her cross-examination, thereafter, her evidence was closed in the year 2017 and after payment of costs of Rs. 3,000/- one more opportunity was granted for submitting the evidence and when the cross-examination was going on the present application has been filed by the petitioner-tenant just to delay the proceedings. Counsel further submits that eviction application has been pending since the year 2011. Counsel further submits that the petitioner-tenant has sub-let the shop in dispute and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons; firstly, as many as 15 opportunities were granted to the petitioner-tenant to submit the evidence since the year 2014 and the petitioner-tenant for all this period failed to submit any such application for submitting the additional affidavit of her son; secondly, the petitioner-tenant failed to submit affidavit of her son along with reply to the eviction application; thirdly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my considered view no case is made out for interference in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.