Dismissed

Trilok Chand Jain v. Mohan Das Fathepuria

Rajasthan HC11 Nov 2014CW/9731/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

where the tenant failed to file evidence within the statutory period provided under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 the eviction petition may be regularly for the delay in filing and the court may interfere under supervise jurisdiction if the tribunal's decision is palpable or illegal as the summary proceedings in the case of the tenant should not be exploited for injury to the tenant. The court found that the remedy was not being exploited for the injury of the tenant who had failed to file the evidence within the time limit provided under the Act. The court dismissed the petition and upheld the order of the Rent Tribunal. The court held that the Rent Tribunal's decision was not palpably erroneous or illegal and therefore, the court would not interfere under Article 227. The court al

Trilok Chand Jain Vs Mohan Das Fathepuria — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶3

ORDER

¶4

Trilok Chand Jain Vs. Mr. Mohan Das Fatehpuria (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9731/2014)

¶5

Date of Order: November 11, 2014. PRESENT

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶7

Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, for the petitioner. Mr. Sudesh Bansal, for the respondent.

¶8

BY THE COURT :

¶9

This petition has been filed against the order dated 7-7-2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.5 Jaipur cum Rent Control Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter `the Tribunal').

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 7-7-2014 passed by the Tribunal. By the said order the Tribunal has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner-non applicant (hereinafter the non-applicant') under Order 8 Rule 1(3) and Section 151 CPC for taking on record certain documents in evidence belatedly at the stage of final argument on the eviction petition filed by the respondentapplicant (hereinafter the applicant'). The Tribunal found that the

¶11

¶12

documents sought to be taken on record were telephone bills pertaining to 2007, 2008 & 2009 and income tax returns pertaining to 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, which were such documents that were in possession of the non applicant at all times and there was no plausible justification for failure to file them along with the reply to the eviction petition in 2008. Reference was made to the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter `the 2001 Act') where under all evidences were to be filed by the non applicant-tenant along with the reply to eviction petition accompanied by affidavits in evidence. The Tribunal was of the view that in the event the documents sought to be filed belatedly were taken on record at the stage of final arguments, it would delay the trial of the eviction petition and entail a unjustifiable contravention of the provisions of the 2001 Act, whereunder every eviction petition was to be ordinarily disposed of within 240 days of the service of notice of the petition on the opposite party.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no eviction petition should be allowed to be adjudicated without addressing all evidence relevant to its fair and just adjudication. He has submitted that the documents sought to be filed under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC, were inadvertently left out and could not be filed along with the reply to eviction petition. The delay in filing of the documents at the stage of final hearing of the eviction petition could be compensated with costs to recompense the respondent applicant.

¶14

¶15

Counsel for the respondent applicant has supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶16

Heard. Considered.

¶17

Section 15(3) of the 2001 Act provides that the tenant submit his reply, affidavits and documents after serving the copies of the same to the petitioner within a period not exceeding forty five days from the date of service of notice of the petition. Section 15(5) provides that the Rent Tribunal shall thereafter fix a date of hearing which shall not be later than one hundred and eighty days from the date of service of notice on the tenant, and the petition shall be disposed of within a period of two hundred and forty days from the date of service of notice on the tenant. A reading of Sections 15(3) and 15(5) of the 2001 Act indicates that summary proceeding before the Tribunal are required only to comply with the principles of natural justice without being burdened by the procedure of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The intent of the 2001 Act is obviously expeditious disposal of the petitions thereunder. The petitioner non applicant was under an obligation to file all documents in support of his defence along with the reply and affidavit in evidence. Albeit the provisions of Section 15(3) of the 2001 Act are directory in nature, yet they cannot be reduced to a dead letter. No doubt the Tribunal has the discretion to allow delayed filing of documents if the delay is reasonable, well justified and does not impinch the proceedings where they have gone afar as in this case till the stage of final arguments. The documents were

¶18

¶19

sought to be filed under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC by the non applicant after an unexplained delay of six years. For about six years no attempt was made to rectify the purported error occasioned by the inadvertent non filing of documents deemed essential for defence in eviction petition. It is on record

¶20

that the documents in issue were well in the possession of the non applicant, and not even a whisper of justification was set out in the application for not filing the same along with the reply to eviction petition or even immediately thereafter.

¶21

In my considered opinion, the Tribunal was correct in holding that in the event the documents are taken on record at the belated stage, it would have caused delay in disposal of the eviction petition pending for six years and then at the stage of final hearing. The order of the Tribunal under Order 8 Rule 1 (3) CPC is discretionary in nature and unless such a discretionary order is palpably erroneous or illegal it does not warrant interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No situation obtains in the present case.

¶22

I therefore find no force in the petition. The same is dismissed.

¶23

arn/

¶24

¶25

All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.

¶26

Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.

Trilok Chand Jain v. Mohan Das Fathepuria

Case brief

What is this about?

Trilok Chand Jain v. Mohan Das Fathepuria

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramji Lal Yadav and Anr. Vs Dr Purshottam Agarwal and Another

Pradeep Kumar and Ors. Vs Purshottam Agarwal and Another

Narendra Kumar Vs Shri Bhaskar a Sawant and Others

Daljeet Singh Vs M/S Laxmanlal Rampratap and Ors.

Sanwar Mal Yadav Vs a K Ghosh and Another

Prakash Chand Yadav Vs Alok Mathur