Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 341 (RAJ)

Om Prakash Jagdish Prasad v. Damodar Prasad

2020-02-07

ARUN BHANSALI

body2020
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 22.11.2019 (Annexure-6), whereby, the Rent Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's application filed for framing of issues and permission to lead evidence in support of the documents produced by the petitioner. 2. A decree was passed by the Rent Tribunal on 05.08.2008 against one Om Prakash. 3. The appeal filed against the decree dated 05.08.2008 was dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on 26.02.2011. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed S.B.C.W.P. No. 2412/2011, which came to be decided on 14.07.2015, wherein, the Court inter alia observed as under:- "8. It is a matter of record that the landlord and tenant relationship was not denied by the respondent-Omprakash in the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal and thus, the impugned judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal after due consideration of the evidence on record, cannot be faulted with. Moreover, if the petitioner claims to be in possession of the premises as tenant and the decree for eviction has been obtained by the respondent-landlord in collusion with the petitioner's brother Omprakash, the respondent no. 4 herein, it is open for the petitioner to resist the execution of the certificate for recovery of possession by way of an appropriate application before the Rent Tribunal in accordance with law. The proceedings before the Rent Tribunal are guided by principles of natural justice and subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, it has powers even to regulate its own procedure and therefore, if any objections are raised by the petitioner resisting the execution of certificate for recovery of possession, the same can always be dealt with by the Rent Tribunal appropriately. 9. In view of the discussion above, no case for interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. 10. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs." 5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an application before the Rent Tribunal seeking to resist the execution of the recovery certificate dated 05.08.2008 as upheld by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on 26.02.2011. 6. During pendency of the said resistance application, the present application was filed requiring the Court to frame issues and permit the petitioner to lead evidence. 7. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an application before the Rent Tribunal seeking to resist the execution of the recovery certificate dated 05.08.2008 as upheld by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on 26.02.2011. 6. During pendency of the said resistance application, the present application was filed requiring the Court to frame issues and permit the petitioner to lead evidence. 7. The application was resisted by the respondents. 8. The Rent Tribunal by its impugned order, inter alia, came to the following conclusion and rejected the application:- ^^mtznkj }kjk vf/kdj.k ds le{k mtznkjh dk tks izkFkZuk i= is'k fd;k x;k gS mlds lEca/k esa rdZ fy;k x;k gS fd og mtznkjh esa fy;s x;s vk{ksi ds leFkZu esa nLrkost is'k dj pqdk gS ijarq mu nLrkostksa dh izekf.kdrk lkfcr djus gsrq o fLFkfr dks Li"V djus gsrq lk{; is'k djuk pkgrk gS blfy, vf/kdj.k ls mtznkjh izkFkZuk i= fook|d dk;e fd;s tkdj lk{; is'k fd;s tkus dh vuqefr pkgrk gSA ijUrq Loa; mtznkj }kjk fy, x;s rdksZ ds lanHkZ esa ns[kk tkos rks mlds }kjk mtznkjh ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa nLrkost is'k fd;k tkuk n'kkZ;k x;k gSA ,slh n'kk esa nLrkost dh izekf.kdrk gsrq fook|d dk;e fd;s tkdj ekSf[kd lk{; fy;s tkus ckcr fof/k dh jks'kuh esa dksbZ vko';drk izrhr ugha gksrh gSA^^ 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner has relied on certain documents and unless those documents are permitted to be proved by leading proper evidence, the plea raised by the petitioner would be not taken as established and would result in injustice to the petitioner and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents resisted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and it was submitted that provisions of Section 21(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 do not apply in view of the fact that the same applies only to suit & appeal and that under Section 20 while executing a recovery certificate the Tribunal has to proceed in a summary manner and, as such, rejection of the application is justified. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. A perusal of the order passed by the Court while deciding the writ petition filed by the petitioner would reveal that this Court finding that disputed questions of facts were involved, observed that the petitioner has to resist the execution of the decree by way of appropriate application before the Tribunal. 13. In the application the petitioner raised several issues and alongwith the application filed certain documents. The present application was filed seeking to prove the said documents and requiring the Court to frame issues. 14. The Tribunal by its order, by simply observing that as the documents have been filed in support of the resistance application, there is no necessity for proving the said documents. The said observations made by the Court in absence of the documents filed by the petitioner having not been admitted by the respondents, do not appear to be correct. 15. A specific query was put to learned counsel for the respondents as to whether the documents filed by the petitioner have been admitted, to which, it is submitted that the documents have not been admitted. Once the documents, in support of the resistance application, have not been admitted, the petitioner has to be provided opportunity to prove the said documents, however, the said opportunity would not be open ended and the petitioner has to be restricted for doing the same to the minimum, inasmuch as, the recovery certificate has been issued way back in the year 2008 and the execution whereof is still hanging fire. 16. In so far as framing of the issues are concerned, the same does not appear to be necessary on account of the fact that except for the resistance offered to the petitioner and its validity nothing else is required to be decided by the Tribunal. 17. Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. The order dated 22.11.2019 is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be permitted to lead evidence by way of affidavit and the respondents would be permitted to cross-examine the petitioner and in case the respondents also require leading of the evidence, they may also be permitted to lead evidence. The petitioner would confine his evidence by way of affidavit to a maximum of two witnesses. The petitioner would confine his evidence by way of affidavit to a maximum of two witnesses. Looking to the circumstances of the case wherein, recovery certificate was issued way back in the year 2008, the Tribunal is directed to ensure that the proceedings are concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of this order.