Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 479 (RAJ)

Mohd. Akeel v. Mohd. Iqbal

2021-02-25

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Prakash Gupta, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-applicants (for short, 'the applicants') under Article 227 against the order dated 5.8.2020 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Tonk (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the application filed by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC and Section 21(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, 'the Act of 2001'); as also the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 and Section 21(3) of the Act of 2001 read with Section 45 of the Evidence Act have been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicants filed an original petition under Section 9(A), (I) (E) and (F) of the Act of 2001 against the respondents-non applicants (for short, the non applicants') before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the original petition, the applicants filed two applications before the Tribunal - (one) under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC and Section 21(3) of the Act of 2001; and (two) under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 and Section 21(3) of the Act of 2001 read with Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The Tribunal dismissed both the applications vide order dated 5.8.2020. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants let out the tenanted premises to Mohd. Iqbal (during his life time) in the year 2001 by way of oral tenancy. Thereafter on 1.8.2005, a rent note with its format was executed by Mohd. Iqbal on a stamp paper of Rs. 10/- in favour of the applicants, where Mohd. Iqbal mentioned that he took the tenanted premises on rent @ Rs. 13,000/- per month. He further submits that in his life time, Mohd. Iqbal paid rent @ Rs. 13,000/- per month to the applicants, for which receipts were issued to him from time to time. Although aforesaid rent note with its format and rent receipts were necessary documents for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the matter, but since the applicant Khalil Ahmed misplaced the said documents, they could not be filed alongwith the original petition. 13,000/- per month to the applicants, for which receipts were issued to him from time to time. Although aforesaid rent note with its format and rent receipts were necessary documents for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the matter, but since the applicant Khalil Ahmed misplaced the said documents, they could not be filed alongwith the original petition. In June, 2019 at the time of cleaning the house on Eid, the said documents were found in an old box, therefore, the applicants filed the application for taking the said documents on record, but since in their reply, the non applicants denied the signatures of Mohd. Iqbal on the aforesaid rent note and rent receipts and stated the same to be forged and fabricated, therefore, they filed another application for taking the report of hand writing expert alongwith reply and statement of Mohd. Iqbal on record, but the Tribunal dismissed the applications in an arbitrary manner. On this count, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. Although in the application filed by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 14(3) readwith Section 151 CPC and Section 21 of the Act of 2001, the applicants mentioned that on 1.8.2005, a rent note was executed by Mohd. Iqbal on a stamp paper of Rs. 10/- in favour of applicants and rent @ of Rs. 13,000/- per month was paid, for which rent receipts were issued by the applicant Khalil Ahmed in favour of Mohd. Iqbal, whereas in his statement recorded on 24.11.2016 AW-1 Khalid Ahmed admitted that no rent note was produced with the original petition and tenancy was oral. He further admitted that no rent receipts were produced by him. No date was mentioned by him as to when the rent note was executed. AW-3 Mohd. Akeel in his cross-examination admitted that they did not have the rent note or rent receipts. He further admitted that the tenancy was oral. AW-4 Fareed on a question asked to him, in his cross-examination admitted that he did not see when the rent note was executed by Mohd. Iqbal or when the tenanted premises were taken on rent by him. The applicants' witnesses AW-5 Abdul Gaffoor and Abdul Ajij in their statements stated before the Tribunal that no rent note was executed. AW-4 Fareed on a question asked to him, in his cross-examination admitted that he did not see when the rent note was executed by Mohd. Iqbal or when the tenanted premises were taken on rent by him. The applicants' witnesses AW-5 Abdul Gaffoor and Abdul Ajij in their statements stated before the Tribunal that no rent note was executed. Thus, neither in the original petition nor in the statements of the applicants or the witnesses recorded before the Tribunal, the date 1.8.2005 was disclosed, when a rent note was said to be executed by Mohd. Iqbal on a stamp paper of Rs. 10/- in favour of applicants. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal denied to take the documents on record. Since the said documents were denied to be taken on record, therefore, the Tribunal observed that there was no justification for taking the report of hand writing expert in relation to the said documents and thus, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the applications of the applicants. 6. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal in its impugned order. 7. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised in cases of jurisdictional error, apparent perversity, patent illegality or manifest injustice, which is not the situation here in this case. 8. For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the stay application also stands dismissed.