Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1485 (RAJ)

Ashwini Verma v. Geeta Panwar

2021-08-12

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2021
ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur (for short 'the trial court') whereby, the application preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer for directing the respondents to produce certain documents on record as has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents has filed an application before the trial court for eviction of petitioner from the rented premises, which has been rented out through a registered rent deed dated 21.12.2017 for five years. The respondents has filed eviction petition alleging that the petitioner did not abide by the terms and conditions of the rent deed and has violated the same by not paying the rent as per deed, therefore, he may be evicted from the rented premises. 3. The petitioner has not filed any reply to the eviction petition and instead of that has moved an application under Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to direct the respondents to produce certain documents, description of which is given in Para No.2 of the application, for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties and to enable the petitioner to file reply to the eviction petition. The application preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC was opposed by the respondents. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial court has passed the impugned order and has partly allowed the application filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the documents sought to be summoned by the petitioner vide application under Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute between the parties and are also necessary for the petitioner so that he can file reply to the eviction petition. It is argued that the trial court without taking into consideration the fact that the documents sought to be summoned by the petitioner are most relevant, has illegally refused to summon certain documents and has only ordered for summoning only one of the documents. It is argued that the trial court without taking into consideration the fact that the documents sought to be summoned by the petitioner are most relevant, has illegally refused to summon certain documents and has only ordered for summoning only one of the documents. It is further argued that the order impugned is illegal and deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 11Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC deserves to be fully allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sandeep Chittoda & Anr. Vs. Vijay Lal Tayal, reported in 2012 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 1155. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Vide application under Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC, the petitioner has prayed for summoning of as many as nine documents including the sale deed through which the respondents had purchased the rented premises, the conversion document of the said property, permission for construction of hotel, NOC issued by the Environmental Department, NOC issued by the Labour Department, NOC issued by the Fire Department, permission granted by the CID, file deposited by the respondents seeking electricity connection and copy of the map annexed to the rent deed. 8. The trial court is of the opinion that except one document, that is the map of the rented property annexed with the rent deed, all other documents are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy before it. The trial court has also observed that it has to decide the dispute between the parties in relation to the rent matter only and is not required to decide the title of the property. Hence, all other documents, except one are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy before it. 9. The trial court has also observed that it has to decide the dispute between the parties in relation to the rent matter only and is not required to decide the title of the property. Hence, all other documents, except one are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy before it. 9. Having going through the material available on record, particularly the eviction petition and the rent deed, I am of the opinion that the documents sought to be summoned by the petitioner, except one document that is the map of the rented property annexed with the rent deed are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy raised before the trial court and, as such, the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. 10. So far as the judgment on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, I am of the opinion that the said judgment is of no help to the petitioner because in that case, initially the Rent Tribunal has ordered for summoning the document from one of the parties, but later on, when the said party has failed to produce the same on the pretext that the same is not in power and possession of it, then the other party has moved an application and requested the trial court to summon the said documents from the Commercial Taxes Department, however, the Rent Tribunal has refused to accept the said prayer, then this Court has held that once the Rent Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the said documents is relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy, it should have summoned the same from the Commercial Taxes Department and refusal of it is not proper. 11. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed as such. Stay petition is also dismissed.