Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 367 (RAJ)

Karanchand Jain v. Asha Uttamchandani

2019-02-01

SANGEET LODHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against order dated 19.12.18 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner for taking the additional affidavits on record, has been rejected. 2. The facts relevant are that the respondent let out a residential premises to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the premises was let out with the clear stipulation that the petitioner shall renovate the house and the expenditure incurred will be reimbursed by the respondent. It is averred that the petitioner incurred the expenditure a sum of Rs. 8,13,000/- in renovating the house. It is stated that the respondent-landlord threatened the petitioner to evict him from the premises in question and therefore, a petition (Rent Case No.167/14), seeking injunction was preferred by the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan under Section 18 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act"), wherein vide order dated 1.7.14, the respondent was restrained from dispossessing the petitioner without following the due process of law. Thereafter, the respondent filed a rent petition (Rent Case No.311/14) under Section 9 of the Act, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the rented premises, on 28.11.14. The petitioner filed a reply to the rent petition taking the stand that he has incurred expenditure of Rs. 8,13,000/- in renovation of the house. It is pertinent to note that at the time of filing reply to the petition, the petitioner had made an application that to prove the averments made in the petition, the affidavits of Sanwar Mal and Shyamlal could not be filed on account of their non availability and therefore, he may be permitted to file the same at the later stage. Thereafter, the petitioner filed yet another petition (Rent Petition No.218/15) under Section 23 & 24 of the Act, before the Rent Tribunal for recovery of Rs. 8,13,000/-. 3. The petitioner filed an application for consolidation of the petition No.218/15 and 311/14, which was rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 8.3.18. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being S.B.C. Writ Petition No.5817/18 before this court. Vide order dated 16.5.18, a coordinate Bench of this court while setting aside the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, directed that both the petitions shall be decided together. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being S.B.C. Writ Petition No.5817/18 before this court. Vide order dated 16.5.18, a coordinate Bench of this court while setting aside the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, directed that both the petitions shall be decided together. It was further directed that the respondent-landlord shall be at liberty to cross examine the witnesses on the affidavits filed by the petitioner-tenant in petition No.218/15. Further, the Rent Tribunal was directed to dispose of both the petitions in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within four months from the date next fixed before it. 4. The witnesses whose affidavits were filed by the petitioner were permitted to be cross examined by the Rent Tribunal. Thereafter, on 11.12.18, the petitioner preferred an application for taking affidavits of two witnesses namely, Shyamlal s/o Bhiyaram Suthar and Sanwar Mal s/o Binjaram Meghwal on record, who according to the petitioner had performed the work of wood and sanitary respectively in the house in question. The petitioner averred that their affidavits could not be filed earlier inasmuch as, they were threatened by the respondent-landlord. The application preferred has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 19.12.18 with costs Rs. 1,000/-. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in reply to the Rent Petition No.311/14, the petitioner has taken the categorical stand that Sanwar Mal s/o Binjaram Meghwal had carried out sanitary work in the premises in question for Rs. 99,500/- and wooden work was done by Shyamlal s/o Bhiyaram, who was paid Rs. 1,10,000/- and the receipts given by them have already been produced on record and thus, the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that the factum of Shyamlal and Sanwar Mal performing the work as aforesaid is not mentioned in the petition filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that when both the petitions stand consolidated, nothing turns on the question that these facts are not specifically mentioned in the Rent Petition No.218/15 filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel urged that since the respondent had threatened the witnesses and therefore, the affidavits could not be filed earlier alongwith the petition and therefore, in the interest of justice, the affidavits of the witnesses produced by the petitioner deserves to be taken on record. Learned counsel urged that since the respondent had threatened the witnesses and therefore, the affidavits could not be filed earlier alongwith the petition and therefore, in the interest of justice, the affidavits of the witnesses produced by the petitioner deserves to be taken on record. Learned counsel urged that merely because this court has issued directions for disposal of the petitions in time frame, the fair opportunity to defend the case cannot be denied to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that admittedly, the petitioner has preferred the application in Rent Petition No.218/15 i.e. the petition preferred for recovery of the expenditure incurred which does not contain any averment regarding Shyamlal and Sanwar Mal performing the work as alleged. It is submitted that as per provisions of the Act, the documents and the affidavits are required to be filed alongwith the petition or reply, as the case may be and thus, the Rent Tribunal has committed no error in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner after a lapse of about four years to take the affidavits on record. As per the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, the petition seeking eviction is required to be decided within a period of 240 days from the date of service of the notice on the tenant. It is submitted that keeping in view the inordinate delay in disposal of the petition, the directions were issued by this court to decide the petitions expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months but even thereafter, the petitioner did not choose to file the affidavits and the same were filed after lapse of about seven months of the passing of the order by the learned Single Judge wherein no permission to file further affidavits was granted rather, the respondent-landlord was given liberty to cross examine the witnesses on the affidavits already filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the reason for not filing the affidavits at the appropriate stage set out by the petitioner in the application earlier on 20.1.15 and the present application, are apparently self contradictory and thus, the application preferred, which lacks bona fide was liable to be dismissed for this reason alone and therefore, no interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted. 7. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. Indisputably, the averments with regard to Sanwar Mal and Shyamlal performing the work of sanitary and wood respectively were made by the petitioner in the reply to the petition seeking eviction filed by the respondent. It is true that while filing the reply, the petitioner preferred an application seeking permission to file affidavit of Sanwar Mal and Shyamlal, however, no such permission was granted to the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the reasons for not filing their affidavits alongwith the reply assigned by the petitioner was that they have gone out in connection with their business and therefore, the affidavit prepared could not be attested. Thereafter, for about four years, the petitioner did not care to file their affidavits and at this stage when the matters are posted for final arguments, the petitioner preferred the application for taking their affidavits on record, stating that earlier their affidavits could not be filed as they were threatened by the respondent-landlord. The reasons assigned by the petitioner in his earlier application for not filing the affidavits at the appropriate stage and the reasons assigned in the present applications explaining the delay in filing the affidavits are apparently contradictory and thus, the respondent is justified in contending that the application preferred is not bona fide. As a matter of fact, the application was preferred by the petitioner to take additional affidavits on record in Rent Petition No.218/15, which does not contain averments regarding Sanwar Mal and Shyamlal performing the work as aforesaid in the premises in question. Merely because, the petitions are directed to be decided by this court together, the petitioner does not acquire right to lead additional evidence in the petition which does not contain the averments sought to be proved by way of additional affidavits. 9. Thus, taking into consideration, the facts and circumstance of the case, the nature of the proceedings, the conduct of the petitioner and the mandate of the law where the petition seeking eviction is required to be decided within the time frame, the Rent Tribunal has committed no error in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner for taking the additional affidavits on record at the belated stage when the matter is posted for final arguments. 10. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. 10. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.