Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1381 (RAJ)

Sharwan Kumar S/o Shri Budhmal v. Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Satyanarayan

2023-07-17

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ order or directions:- (i) The impugned order dated 17.01.2023 (P/7) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal Churu in case no.05/2011 (Pawan Kumar vs. Shrawan Kumar) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner dated 17.01.2023 seeking the permission to got exhibit he documents may kindly be allowed. (ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. (iii) Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondent-landlord filed an application (registered as Rent Petition 05/2011) under Sections 6 & 9 (a) of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the learned Rent Tribunal, Churu for eviction and revision of rent of the premises in question, against the present petitioner-tenant; whereupon, the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 05.10.2012 allowed the said application. 2.1. The present petitioner against the aforementioned order dated 05.10.2012 filed an appeal before the learned Appellant Rent Tribunal, Churu; whereupon the learned Appellant Rent Tribunal vide the order dated 17.03.2017 allowed the appeal and quashed the order dated 05.10.2012 to the extent of eviction order; further the matter was remanded back to the learned Rent Tribunal with a direction to decide the same afresh within a period of six months thereafter. 2.2. The present petitioner, preferred the Writ Petitions bearing S.B.C.W.P. No.9630/2017 & S.B.C.W.P. No. 15385/2017 before the Hon’ble Court against the aforementioned orders dated 05.10.2012 and 17.03.2017; whereupon this Hon’ble Court vide the common order dated 05.08.2022, remanded the matter back to the learned Rent Tribunal to decide the matter afresh. 2.3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 with a prayer that there are certain rent payment receipts issued towards payment of rent to the respondent-landlord by the petitioner-tenant; the same being the relevant documents, may be taken on record. 2.3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 with a prayer that there are certain rent payment receipts issued towards payment of rent to the respondent-landlord by the petitioner-tenant; the same being the relevant documents, may be taken on record. The learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 17.12.2022 allowed the said application. Thereafter, the petitioner again moved an application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for marking the same as exhibits, but the learned Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 17.01.2023 rejected the said application. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the application of the petitioner for taking the documents on record was allowed, then the learned Rent Tribunal ought not have refused to exhibit the same. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the order dated 05.08.2022 clearly issued a direction for grant of proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned before the matter, upon being remanded, is decided afresh by the learned Tribunal, and therefore, the impugned order is also violative of the principle of natural justice. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the impugned order was passed merely on ground of delay, and therefore the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the rent petition has been filed in the year of 2011, and still the matter is pending, though upon being remanded back. 4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner filed the application in question only to cause delay in final decision of the rent petition and to cause undue harassment to the respondent-landlord. Thus, the impugned order was rightly passed by the learned Tribunal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that the respondent-landlord filed a rent petition against the petitioner-tenant in 2011 for eviction and revision of rent of the premises in question. Thereafter, on 17.12.2022, the petitioner filed an application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 to take the rent receipts on record, which was allowed on 17.12.2022. 6. This Court observes that the respondent-landlord filed a rent petition against the petitioner-tenant in 2011 for eviction and revision of rent of the premises in question. Thereafter, on 17.12.2022, the petitioner filed an application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 to take the rent receipts on record, which was allowed on 17.12.2022. The petitioner again filed an application for marking the said documents as exhibits. The learned Rent Tribunal however vide the impugned order 17.01.2023 rejected the said application. 7. This Court further observes that the rent petition filed in the year of 2011 is pending for final disposal. This Court also observes that the Rent Tribunal as well as Appellant Rent Tribunal have been constituted under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and entire purpose behind the said statute is expeditious disposal of the pending rent cases. In the present case, the matter is pending for almost 12 years, and thus, in the present factual matrix, the aforementioned application, which was rejected vide the impugned order, seems to have been filed by the petitioner-tenant so as to cause delay in final disposal of the rent case in question, as filed by the respondent-landlord. Thus, in the firm opinion of this Court, the impugned order does not suffer for any legal infirmity, so as to call for any interference by this Court. 8. Thus, in light of the above observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 9. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.