Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2676 (RAJ)

Swadesh Lodha v. Lobh Chand Mangi Lal Chaddar Wala Pvt. Ltd.

2022-11-01

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 30 of Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued the matter and submits that rejection of the application by the Rent Tribunal is arbitrary and illegal. He further submits that the respondent has constructed a hall in the premises and the said fact has not been denied by the respondent, therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly rejected the application. Learned counsel further submits that since the application under Section 30 of Code of Civil Procedure was pending consideration before the learned Tribunal, even then learned Tribunal allowed the petitioner to produce his evidence subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/-. He further submits that the petitioner could not produce the evidence and was bonafidely under the impression that since the application under Section 30 of the CPC is pending consideration, the evidence can be produced after the decision is made on the application under Section 30 of the CPC. He however submits that imposition of cost of Rs. 5,000/- is harsh and arbitrary. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order dated 08.08.2022 may be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents supported the order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara and submits that the learned Rent Tribunal has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner preferred under Section 30 of CPC. He further submits that rules/sections of the Code of Civil Procedure are not strictly applicable in the present case and by virtue of this application, the evidence cannot be collected in the matter against the plaintiff-respondent. He, therefore, prays that no interference is warranted in the present case. However, learned Senior Counsel is not in a position to dispute the fact that during the pendency of the application preferred under Section 30 of CPC, the petitioner could not produce his evidence and, therefore, the imposition of the cost of Rs. 5,000/- for producing the evidence before the Tribunal is a bit harsh. 5. However, learned Senior Counsel is not in a position to dispute the fact that during the pendency of the application preferred under Section 30 of CPC, the petitioner could not produce his evidence and, therefore, the imposition of the cost of Rs. 5,000/- for producing the evidence before the Tribunal is a bit harsh. 5. Considering the submissions made at the Bar and taking note of the fact that the Rent Tribunal can borrow the principles of Code of Civil Procedure but cannot strictly apply the same while adjudicating the applications pending before it. A close scrutiny of the order dated 08.08.2022 shows that the learned Rent Tribunal has rightly rejected the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 30 of CPC. 6. It is further noted that the eviction petition is pending consideration since 2015 and still the same is at the stage of evidence of the respondent for last five years, therefore, it appears that the petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings on one count or the other. Therefore, no interference in the order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara is warranted in the present case. However, taking into consideration the fact that since the application preferred under Section 30 of CPC was pending consideration before the Tribunal and the petitioner was under bona fide impression that until the application under Section 30 of CPC is decided, he could not produce his evidence, the imposition of the cost of Rs. 5,000/- for production of the evidence appears to be harsh and, therefore, the same is quashed and set aside. 7. Since the matter is pending consideration before the Rent Tribunal from the year 2015, the Rent Tribunal is directed to decide the pending eviction petition filed by the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 8. With these observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.