Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1469 (RAJ)

Neelam Nagpal v. Tolaram

2022-05-07

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2022
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the judgment dated 24.03.2021 passed by the appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter to be referred as 'the appellate rent tribunal') in appeal No.207/2015 (CIS No.230/2015), whereby it has allowed the appeal filed on behalf of the respondent while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2015 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter to be referred as 'the rent tribunal') in Civil Original Case No.42/2013, whereby the rent tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the respondent under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the act of 2001'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application against the petitioner under Section 18 of the act of 2001 before the rent tribunal with a prayer to restrain the petitioner from dispossessing him from the property in question without following due process of law. Pursuant to the summons issued by the rent tribunal, the petitioner appeared before it and filed reply to the above application of the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent and his other witnesses filed affidavits in evidence and the matter was fixed for their cross-examination. 3. From the perusal of the order-sheets of the rent tribunal, it appears that when the respondent and his other witnesses failed to appear before the rent tribunal for the purpose of cross-examination, then vide order dated 05.01.2015 the rent tribunal ultimately closed their opportunity of adducing the evidence and proceeded further in the matter. at this stage, the petitioner stated before the rent tribunal that she is also not going to adduce any evidence in support of her reply to the application of the respondent. Ultimately, the rent tribunal vide judgment dated 24.04.2015 dismissed the application filed by the respondent. 4. Being aggrieved with the order dated 24.04.2015 passed by the rent tribunal, the respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate rent tribunal while stating that he was in police as well as in judicial custody from 02.06.2014 to 13.02.2015, therefore, failed to adduce evidence before the rent tribunal and to make himself and his witnesses present for the purpose of cross-examination. 5. 5. Taking into consideration the above fact, the appellate rent tribunal vide judgment dated 24.03.2021 has allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2015 passed by the rent tribunal while remanding the matter to it with a direction to grant one last opportunity to the respondent to adduce his evidence in support of his application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that vide impugned judgment dated 24.03.2021, the appellate rent tribunal has grossly erred in allowing the appeal preferred on behalf of the respondent and also erred in setting aside the judgment dated 24.04.2015 passed by the rent tribunal. It is argued that as per the respondent's own contention, he was released from jail on 13.02.2015 but after that he has not moved any application before the rent tribunal for granting him any opportunity to adduce his evidence though after 13.02.2015, the matter was fixed on 04.03.2015 and 22.04.2015. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the respondent had deliberately not adduced his evidence before the rent tribunal and as such the rent tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2015 but the appellate rent tribunal has committed illegality in interfering in the matter vide judgment dated 24.03.2021 and, therefore, the judgment dated 24.03.2021 passed by the appellate rent tribunal is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the appellate rent tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2021. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is true that the respondent failed to adduce his evidence before the rent tribunal though he was granted opportunities for the same on different dates but it is an admitted position that he remained in police as well as in judicial custody from 02.06.2014 to 13.02.2015 and the rent tribunal closed the opportunity of adducing his evidence on 05.01.2015 itself. 11. When the respondent was in police as well as in judicial custody from 02.06.2014 to 13.02.2015, he was not in a position to adduce his evidence before the rent tribunal. 12. 11. When the respondent was in police as well as in judicial custody from 02.06.2014 to 13.02.2015, he was not in a position to adduce his evidence before the rent tribunal. 12. This Court feels that every person has right to prove his/her case before any court and for that purpose sufficient opportunity for adducing evidence is required to be given. 13. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, I don't find any illegality in the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2021 passed by the appellate rent tribunal. 14. Hence, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 215. However, taking into consideration the fact that the application under Section 18 of the act of 2001 has been filed by the respondent in the year 2013, I deem it appropriate to direct the rent tribunal to decide the said application filed by the respondent expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 16. It is made clear that the rent tribunal shall not grant more than one opportunity to the respondent to adduce his evidence. 17. The petitioner as well as the respondent are directed not to seek unnecessary adjournment in the matter. 18. Ordered accordingly. 19. Stay petition also stands dismissed.