Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 766 (RAJ)

State Bank Of India v. Shiv Charan Gupta

2019-03-07

VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2019
JUDGMENT Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. - By the order dated 2nd February, 2019, the Rent Tribunal declined an application under section 151 CPC instituted by the petitioner-tenant for cross-examination of the applicant-non-petitioner-landlord; of which the petitioner-tenant is aggrieved of. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 2nd February, 2019, insistently argued that cross examination is a valuable right, and therefore, ought not to have been declined by the Rent Tribunal in the pending proceedings. According to the counsel, on an application instituted by the applicant-non-petitioner dated 17th November, 2018, requesting the Rent Tribunal to call upon the parties, if they intended to cross-examine their counterparts on the affidavits filed in lieu of examination-in chief; the petitioner-tenant did not decline the opportunity. Hence, in such circumstances, it was all the more necessary for the Rent Tribunal to grant the application seeking permission for cross-examination of the applicant-non-petitioner. 3. Reference has also been made to the opinion of the Apex Court of the land in the case of Ramswaroop vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors., (2007) 4 RLW 3247 , amplifying the plea that when the application seeking permission for cross-examination was not vague and unspecific, the Tribunal should have granted prayer for cross-examination in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra; Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta - respondent, present in person, resisting the claim of the petitioner, while supporting the impugned order contended that he has filed the response to the writ application specifically detailing out the facts, which would lead to inescapable conclusion that the writ application has been instituted only with an object to further delay the pending proceedings. 5. Referring to the order dated 29th October, 2018, made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil First Appeal Number 478/2018: SBI vs. Shiv Charan Gupta; it is contended that the Rent Tribunal was directed to conclude the pending proceedings as expeditiously as possible; preferably, within three months. 6. According to the respondent, present in person, after institution of the application dated 17th November, 2018; the matter was listed on 11th December, 2018, 19th December, 2018, 21st December, 2018 and 5th January, 2019. However, the application was instituted by the petitioner only on 17th November, 2018, that was decided on 5th January, 2019. 6. According to the respondent, present in person, after institution of the application dated 17th November, 2018; the matter was listed on 11th December, 2018, 19th December, 2018, 21st December, 2018 and 5th January, 2019. However, the application was instituted by the petitioner only on 17th November, 2018, that was decided on 5th January, 2019. For the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity to cross-examine the applicant-non petitioner even when such an opportunity was made available; hence, in view of the facts aforesaid, the impugned order dated 2nd February, 2019, calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Referring to the text of Section 15, 21 and 29 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, "the Act of 2001"), it is asserted that procedure for eviction of tenant has been specifically detailed out under the Act of 2001. Further, the procedure and powers of Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal have been specifically spelt out under Section 21 of the Act of 2001, which contemplates that Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is not applicable, but the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal shall be guided by the principles of natural justice subject to other provisions of the Act of 2001 or rules made thereunder. 8. According to the respondent, Act of 2001, has overriding effect in view of the contemplation under Section 29 of the Act of 2001. Thus, keeping in view the scheme and object of the Act of 2001, which provides for an expeditious conclusion of the proceedings instituted under the Act of 2001, before the Rent Tribunal within 240 days; the writ application merits rejection on this count alone. 9. Heard and considered. 10. Indisputably, an application was instituted on 17th November, 2018, by the applicant-non-petitioner before the Rent Tribunal to call upon the parties, if they intended to avail of the opportunity of cross-examination. The petitioner while did not decline the opportunity, but did not avail of the opportunity either. The application dated 17th November, 2018, was decided on 5th January, 2019. The fact that direction has been issued by this Court on 29th October, 2018, to conclude the pending proceedings within three months, is also not in dispute. 11. The petitioner while did not decline the opportunity, but did not avail of the opportunity either. The application dated 17th November, 2018, was decided on 5th January, 2019. The fact that direction has been issued by this Court on 29th October, 2018, to conclude the pending proceedings within three months, is also not in dispute. 11. In the case of Ramswaroop (supra), the Apex Court of the land while examining the controversy raised therein including an opportunity for cross-examination on an application instituted by the tenant, made observations in the factual matrix of that case where the tenant made an application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001, seeking permission for cross-examination of the deponents, PW-1 to PW-4, who had deposed in support of the landlord's claim for eviction. The Rent Tribunal permitted cross examination of deponents only with regard to the issue number 5. No cross-examination was permitted in respect of issue number 1 to 4. 12. A glance of the factual matrix of the case of Ramswaroop (supra), would reflect that the facts in that case were quite different and distinguishable from the facts case at hand wherein an application was instituted by the applicant-non-petitioner before the Rent Tribunal to call upon the parties, if they intended to cross-examine the deponents, who filed their affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief. The petitioner having not availed of the remedy cannot later on complain of injustice. 13. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the reasonings recorded by the Court below while declining the application of the petitioner; the impugned order suffers with no material illegality so as to call for any interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (5 of 5) [CW-4835/2019] 14. In the result, the writ application fails, and is, hereby dismissed.