Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 489 (RAJ)

Shri Mukan Chand Gothi v. Shri Sachin Shah

2021-02-26

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order dated 11.06.2019 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Beawar District Ajmer (hereinafter referred as "the learned Tribunal") whereby, the application dated 10.06.2019 filed by the petitioner-non-applicant under Section 21(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity "the Act of 2001") read with Order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC, has been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondents/applicants have filed an eviction petition under Section 9 of the Act of 2001seeking petitioner's eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. Before the evidence of the applicants began, the petitioner moved an application seeking a direction for the ICICI Bank Limited, Branch Mahaveer Bazar, Beawar to produce cheque No.986400 dated 22.06.2016 for Rs.14,652/- which he tried to deposit in the bank account of the respondents to clear arrears of rent in response to their notice dated 08.06.2016, which has been dismissed vide order impugned dated 11.06.2019. 3. Inviting attention of this Court towards the documents on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite giving notice to deposit arrears of rent in their bank account with ICICI Bank, Branch Mahaveer Bazar, Beawar, the respondents instructed their bank not to credit the aforesaid amount deposited by the petitioner through the cheque in question. He submitted that in their reply to his earlier application seeking a direction for the respondents to produce the cheque, they have categorically stated that the cheque in question was not in their possession and hence, the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed their application seeking a direction to the bank to produce the cheque which was necessary to establish his defence that no default in payment of rent was made out as he has tendered arrears of rent in time. Learned counsel submitted that it is cardinal principle that the non-applicant-tenant should be given fullest opportunity to defend the case set up by the applicant, therefore, the impugned order dated 11.06.2019 be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel submitted that it is cardinal principle that the non-applicant-tenant should be given fullest opportunity to defend the case set up by the applicant, therefore, the impugned order dated 11.06.2019 be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-applicants supporting the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal submitted that the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the application which was not bonafide inasmuch as it was moved by the petitioner with inordinate delay as observed by the learned Tribunal and has rightly been dismissed on that count. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has to stand on his own legs to establish his defence and the bank could not have been directed to produce the cheque in question. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Admittedly, the respondents are seeking eviction of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 on the ground of default in payment of rent. The respondents have, vide their legal notice dated 08.06.2016, required the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent in their joint bank account No.681301424707, ICICI Bank, Mahaveer Bazar, Beawar District Ajmer, in pursuance whereof, he deposited the cheque dated 18.06.2016 bearing No.986399 for Rs. 14,652/- representing the arrears of rent with the Bank of the respondents for clearance; but, the same could not be cleared as the respondents have either 'freezed' the account or on account of "invalid account" as the endorsement by the bank reveals. 7. In response to the application dated 26.08.2018 filed by the petitioner seeking discovery of documents from the respondents, the respondents have replied categorically that they were not in possession of the cheque in question. In these circumstances, the petitioner was left with no option but to seek production of the cheque from the bank of the respondents. It has not been case of the respondents that the cheque in question does not lie with their bank. In considered opinion of this Court, production of the cheque in question was necessary for just and effective disposal of the controversy involved in the matter. Further, this Court is not satisfied that the application was filed by the petitioner with inordinate delay. Undisputedly, evidence of the respondents is yet to begin and hence, there was no delay in preferring the application. 8. Further, this Court is not satisfied that the application was filed by the petitioner with inordinate delay. Undisputedly, evidence of the respondents is yet to begin and hence, there was no delay in preferring the application. 8. Resultantly, the order dated 11.06.2019 is quashed and set aside and the application dated 10.06.2019 is allowed. 9. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.