Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1777 (RAJ)

Sushil Mathur v. Faiyaz Ali

2021-09-20

RAMESHWAR VYAS, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
ORDER 1. This intra court appeal is directed by the appellant (tenant) against the Order dated 09.04.2021 passed by learned Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Writ Misc. Application No. 72/2021 whereby, the application preferred by the appellant (tenant) for recalling the Order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1661/2021, was rejected. 2. The brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. 3. The respondent - Faiyaz Ali being the landlord, filed an application for eviction before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur against the appellant herein under Section 9(i) & (m) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (afterwards referred to as 'the Act of 2001'). As per the landlord, the proceedings of the application were being stalled by the tenant and the tribunal was turning a blind eye to his dilating tactics. Hence, the landlord filed the above writ petition in this Court. The pertinent assertions made by the landlord at Paras 4 & 5 as well as grounds (A), (B) & (D) of the writ petition are reproduced as under :- '4. That it is very outset to submit here that despite best efforts of the petitioner to deciding an eviction petition, the matter was again and again prolonged by the respondent/tenant by his best effort. It is admitted that on 19.07.2019, the petition for an eviction of the tenants was filed and now till today, the cross-examination to the landlord and his witnesses was not completed. It is also certain that the Act of 2001 specify the specific time period for conducting or deciding the eviction petition. That being the position, it is crystal clear that Rent Control law hold a summary proceeding and an eviction suit filed by the landlord should be decided in within 245 days of its filing but in the present case Respondent/tenant again and again sought adjournment from the ld. Tribunal and the ld. Tribunal is kind enough to grant adjournment to the tenant. 5. That it is further relevant to submit here that, when Rent Control Act specified the disposal of eviction petition in within a period of 245 days but Ld. Court below again and again grant adjournment to the Respondents without any rhyme and reason. A. That, the Ld. Tribunal is kind enough to grant adjournment to the tenant. 5. That it is further relevant to submit here that, when Rent Control Act specified the disposal of eviction petition in within a period of 245 days but Ld. Court below again and again grant adjournment to the Respondents without any rhyme and reason. A. That, the Ld. Tribunal below has committed a serious error apparent on the face of record by giving again and again time to the tenant for secure his un justify demand to prolong the matter. Hence, the interference of this Hon'ble High Court is essential. B. That admittedly, the notice of an eviction petition has been served to the Respondent in the year 2016 and till today an evidence of the petitioner was not completed being the reason of illegal tactics of the Respondent. The Respondent again and again sought several adjournments before the ld. tribunal for prolonging the matter. The ld. tribunal all the time grant indulgence to the Respondent by giving suitable time or just impose minor penalty/cost upon the Respondent. So the tactics of the Respondent are highly questionable and liable to be rejected on face of it. D. That Ld. Tribunal not only taking the reply on record but also promote an illegal tactics of the Tenant. When eviction petition has to be decided in 245 days then taking the reply after approximately one year on record clearly shows the none application of mind on the part of Ld. Tribunal. It is great surprise for the Petitioner that ground for not filing reply to eviction petition is totally nonest and in all the similar eviction petition of different tenants, the same ground in regard to illness of mother has been taken. It can't be possible that on the same time all the mothers of the tenants can become ill but Ld. Court below on extraneous ground allowed an application hence, interference of this Hon'ble Court is warranted.' 4. From a bare perusal of the above referred assertions made in the writ petition, it becomes clear that the petitioner tried to impute motive to the Tribunal for delaying the proceedings by making wild allegations that the Tribunal was indulging in granting adjournments to the respondent-tenant without any justification and that disposal of the application was being delayed contrary to the letter and spirit of Section 15 of the Act of 2001. Suffice it to say, the landlord-writ-petitioner did not file a single order-sheet along with the writ petition to substantiate the allegations made in the pleadings. 5. Be that as it may. On the first date of listing of the writ petition, being persuaded by the arguments of the petitioner's counsel, the learned Single Bench decided the matter vide Order dated 01.02.2021 and directed the tribunal to dispose of the Case No. 155/2019 within a period of one year from the date of receiving certified copy of the order. The respondent-tenant (the appellant herein) on receiving the copy of the Order dated 01.02.2021, filed a misc. application for recalling of the order with the specific allegation that the Order dated 01.02.2021 was procured by the landlord by making false allegations and by playing fraud with the Court. The application has been dismissed vide Order dated 09.04.2021, which is assailed in this intra court appeal. 6. Learned counsel Shri Sandhu, thus, urges that the conduct of the writ-petitioner in filing the writ petition with patently false assertions and procuring the order from the Court by making misstatement of facts needs to be dealt with heavily so as to deter the litigants from indulging in such mal-practices. He, therefore, prays that the Order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench deserves to be modified and a direction be issued to prosecute the writ-petitioner (respondent-landlord) Shri Faiyaz Ali for perjury and for contempt of the Court. He further urges that heavy and exemplary cost deserves to be imposed on the writ-petitioner in view of his malicious pleadings which tends to lower the prestige of the institution. In support of his contentions, Shri Sandhu drew the Court's attention to the order-sheets of the tribunal, which are in the following order :- 30.07.2019 application was presented and notices were issued to the tenant. 02.09.2019 notices served on the tenant and appearance put on his behalf 16.09.2019 Reply filed on behalf of the tenant 18.10.2019 Copy of reply provided to the landlord-applicant who sought time for filing rejoinder. 02.12.2019 Rejoinder not filed by the landlord within stipulated time and thus, the tribunal closed the opportunity of filing the rejoinder and the next date was fixed on 14.01.2020. 7. The matter was adjourned to 04.02.2020 and 03.03.2020 for enquiry & arguments, and thereafter, the proceedings could not be carried out because of the COVID-19 pandemic. 02.12.2019 Rejoinder not filed by the landlord within stipulated time and thus, the tribunal closed the opportunity of filing the rejoinder and the next date was fixed on 14.01.2020. 7. The matter was adjourned to 04.02.2020 and 03.03.2020 for enquiry & arguments, and thereafter, the proceedings could not be carried out because of the COVID-19 pandemic. On 21.08.2020, an application for condoning the delay in filing the rejoinder and taking the rejoinder on affidavit on record was moved by the respondent (landlord), a copy of which was supplied to the appellant (tenant) and the matter was fixed for reply and arguments. As per statement of the learned counsel for the parties, the rejoinder of the landlord was subsequently taken on record after 21.08.2020. Thereafter again, the matter was adjourned on a few dates because of the COVID-19 pandemic. 8. Shri Manish Patel, learned counsel representing the respondent-landlord is not in a position to dispute the fact that the averments made in the writ petition filed on behalf of the landlord regarding the application having been delayed on account of the conduct of the tenant is totally incorrect in view of the above referred order-sheets drawn in the proceedings of the tribunal. However, Shri Patel vehemently and fervently urged that this intra court appeal is not maintainable. 9. Regarding the aspect of maintainability, suffice it to say that the appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved of the refusal of the learned Single Bench to entertain his prayer for recalling the ex-parte Order dated 01.02.2021 and to direct prosecution of the writ-petitioner for filing the writ petition with false assertions. Thus, the bar of maintainability does not come in the way of the appellant herein as the Court is not powerless to deal with the litigants who do not approach the Court with clean hands and tried to procure the orders by false assertions and pleadings. On the contrary, exercise of jurisdiction in such matters is essential to secure the ends of justice. 10. While disposing of the application by the impugned Order dated 09.04.2021, the learned Single Bench did not advert to the pertinent assertions made by the appellant herein and the ordersheets of the tribunal. From a bare reading of the order-sheets, it becomes clear that the appellant-tenant was, in no manner, responsible for the delay in disposal of the application. 10. While disposing of the application by the impugned Order dated 09.04.2021, the learned Single Bench did not advert to the pertinent assertions made by the appellant herein and the ordersheets of the tribunal. From a bare reading of the order-sheets, it becomes clear that the appellant-tenant was, in no manner, responsible for the delay in disposal of the application. The entire responsibility for causing the delay was of the landlord Shri Faiyaz Ali, who filed his rejoinder after the expiry of the stipulated time limit and then, kept on delaying the proceedings until, he could succeed to bring the rejoinder on record by paying cost. Manifestly, the pleadings of the writ petition referred to supra, filed by the landlord Shri Faiyaz Ali were full of false assertions. The landlord went to the extent of casting aspersions on the tribunal by alleging that it committed serious error by giving adjournments repeatedly to the tenant and virtually acceded to his unjustified demands for prolonging the matter. The allegation that the evidence of the landlord could not be completed because of the illegal tactics of the appellant (tenant) and the undue indulgence granted to him by the tribunal is patently false. Thus, it is clear that the respondent-writ-petitioner procured the order of expeditious disposal from this Court by making blatant misstatements in the writ petition. His conduct deserves to be deprecated and is required to be dealt with firm hands so that the unsavory litigants are deterred from procuring orders by fraudulent pleadings. 11. Accordingly, we hereby modify the Order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench and impose cost to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- upon the respondent (landlord) Shri Faiyaz Ali, who shall deposit the same with the Rent Control Tribunal, Jodhpur within next thirty days. If the respondent (landlord) fails to deposit the cost within the stipulated time, his evidence shall be closed. The amount of cost, upon being deposited, shall be appropriated in the funds of District Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur. The direction given by the learned Single Bench for expeditious disposal of the application is maintained. The intra court appeal is disposed of in above terms.